THE SUMERIAN KING LIST
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS • CHICAGO
THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY, NEW YORK; THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
PRESS, LONDON; THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA, TOKYO, OSAKA,
KYOTO, FUKUOKA, SENDAI; THE COMMERCIAL PRESS, LIMITED, SHANGHAI
XT-TF
•M&M 'Ah JLh ii iM ii i iiiii i iil lll '■
SUMERIAN KING
LIST
BY THORKILD JACOBSEN
THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
ASSYRIOLOGICAL STUDIES • NO. 11
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS • CHICAGO • ILLINOIS
COPYRIGHT 1939 BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED. PUBLISHED JUNE 1939. COMPOSED AND PRINTED BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U.S.A.
TO O. E. RAVN, TO THE MEMORY OF EDWARD CHIERA
AND TO H. FRANKFORT ARE THESE STUDIES DEDICATED
PREFACE
The incentive to, the studies here presented was .furnished by the excava-
tions,, of the Orient.al, Institute at Tell:Asmar. .When in the season of 1931/32
we opened up strata of Agade and Early Dynastic times, the chronology of
these periods naturally occupied our thoughts greatly, and the author felt
prompted to resume earlier, more perfunctory studies of the Sumerian King
List. The main ideas embodied in the present work took shape that season in
the evenings, after days spent in the houses and among the remains of the
periods with which the King List deals. The detailed working-out and re-
peated testing of these ideas have occupied much of the author’s time in the
years since then. He releases them—aithough he feels that they will continue
to occupy his thoughts for a long time yet — in the sincere hope that they will
prove fruitful to other workers in this field and contribute toward better under-
standing of the innumerable chronological problems which still await solution.
The author is indebted to many people for help and encouragement — first
of all to the three men to whom this book is dedicated. To the example of their
widely different but all truly scholarly personalities I owe much. O. E. Ravn,
my teacher, is the embodiment of his own sober concepts of what scholarship
should be and the best mentor a young Assyriologist could have. As for Ed-
ward Chiera — only those who had the good fortune to work with this warm-
hearted, vital, and inspiring scholar can fully realise how irreparable a loss our
science suffered at his untimely death in 1933. With H. Frankfort I have been
associated through ten years of work in the field and at home, fruitful years of
friendship and free exchange of ideas which I value highly. Toward the studies
here presented he has shown a never failing interest.
Sincere thanks are due, further, to the late James Henry Breasted for accept-
ing this book for the Oriental Institute series and especially to the present
director of the Institute, John A, Wilson, for making the fulfilment of that
promise possible although conditions have changed materially. John Wilson
also suggested comparing my results with Egyptian chronology and assisted
with the Egyptological literature on the subject.
To my colleagues in the Oriental Institute I am indebted for suggestions and
helpful criticism on many points. Several have undertaken to read the manu-
script completely or in part. I may mention Professors A. T. Olmstead and
F. W. Geers and Drs. George G. Cameron, Robert M. Engberg, C. W. Me-
Ewan, Ignace J. Gelb, and Samuel I. Feigin.
iX' '
X
Pbefacb
Of inestimable value has been the interest and painstaking care which Dr.
T. George Allen and his associates on the editorial staff of the Oriental Insti-
tute have shown in dealing with this volume. I wish especially to emphasize
my feeling of deep indebtedness to Mrs. Ruth S. Brookens, with whom every
point of both style and argument has been thoroughly discussed. Through her
unflagging interest, her fine scholarly approach, and excellent judgment this
essay has profited materially. The index at the end of the book is also due
to her.
;,;,GonEHHAGnN
April 14, 1939
Thoekild Jacobsen
TABLE OP CONTENTS
fAm
List OF Abbeeviations . . / . .. . : . xiii
L Ihteodection . . . . , . . . 1
, 11. Textual Peoblems . " . . . , . . ' . . , . 5
The Individual Manuscripts . .... , . . ... . . . 5
Derivation from a Single Original . . . 13
Genealogy of the Manuscripts . . ... . . ... . . , 14
The Postdiluvian Section 14
Evidence from the Principal Variants ... ... . . . . 14
The Atabba Variants .... . ..... . , . . 15
Variants in the Eeigns of the Agade Rulers . ... . . . 23
Variants in the Formulas , . . . ... ... . . . 28
Genealogical Table Based on the Foregoing Variants . . . . . 42
Supplementary Evidence from Variants of More limited Scope , . 50
The Fourth Dynasty of Uruk . . ........ . 50
The Interregnum in the Agade Period . . . . ... . . 52
The E'u(g)-Baba Variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Influence from the Y Group on Sui, Sug, and Li 54
The Antediluvian Section 55
III. Ceitical Edition of the Text, with Teanslation and Notes ... 69
IV. Composition .128
Date 128
The Collective i - b - lal 129
The Disregard of Subject Element -n - and ‘'Causative'^ - n « , . 131
Traces of Early Redactions 135
The Term si§t ukui....slg 137
Basic Ideas in the King List 138
Conclusions 140
Place 141
Sources ..... . . . . . . 141
General Character of the Sources 141
Sources of the ^^Notes'^ . 142
Sources of the Material Which Constitutes the Main Body of the List . 147
Individual Sources 154
Methods . . . . . . . . 158
V. Histoeical Value 165
Relative Values of Features in the King List 165
Isolation and Reconstruction of the Sources 167
The Kish Source . 167
xii Tabi/B OF Contents ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
PAGE
The XJruk Source . . . , . . .......... 169
The Ur Source 172
The Akshak Source . ... . . . . . . . . . . • . 176
The Agade Source . . . . ... ... . . . ... 177
Correlation of the Sources ...... . . . . . . . . 178
Ur and Agade . . . . ■ . ' . . . . . . . \ . .. . ^ . 178
Agade, Kish, and Uruk . . . . . . . . ... . . . 178
Akshak and Kish . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Uruk and Lagash . . . . . . . . . . ... ... 179
Table I. Tabulation of the Sources as Correlated . . . . . facing ISO
Comparisons with Data from Other Documents . . . . . . . . 180
^^Missing Eulers” . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Synchronisms . « ♦ • ... . . . . . . . . . . 183
En-temena-Lugal-kinishe-dudu . . . . . . . . . . . 183
En-shakush-‘Anna(k)‘-Enbi-*Eshtar . . . . . ... . . ,183
En-shakush-Anna(k)-"Eiulu ... . . . . . . . . . . 184
A-Anne-pada-about Ur-Nanshe(k) . . . . . . ... . 184
GilgameS'^Aka . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Types of Personal Names . . . . ... . . . . . . . 187
VL Eesultito Chronology . . 191
Eelevant Fixed Points of Absolute Chronology . . . . . . . . 191
Eeckoning from Late Chronological Lists • • • • • • * • 1^1
Astronomical Dating of the Hammurabi Dynasty and of the Third Dy-
nasty of Ur ... ... . . 196
Connection of Datable Dynasties with Those in the King List Proper . . 202
The Eeign of Utu-hegal . . , . . . , . . . . . . . 202
Gutium and Agade . . . . . . ... . . . .... 204
Table II. Chronology of Mesopotamian Eulers down to the First Dynasty
of Babylon . . .... . . facing 208
Index - ... . . . . . . . . 209
Plate. Cuneiform Text OF J AND OP Epic Fragment K 11624 . . . at end
LIST OF ABBREVIATIOXS
AH
AJSL
An. Or.
AO
AOF
AS
AS No. 6
BE
BE I 1-2
BE III 1
BE VI 2
BE XX 1
BE XXXI
BM
Bu
CBS
CR
CT
Dec.
ERA
OSG
HRETA
Delitzsch, F. Assyrisches Handworterbueli (Leipzig, 1896).
American journal of Semitic languages and literatures (Chicago
etc., 1884 ).
Analecta orientalia (Roma, 1931 ).
Paris. Mus^e national du Louvre. Antiquites orientaies. (Fol-
lowed by catalogue number.)
Archiv flir Orientforschung (Berlin, 1923 [Vols. I-II called
''Arcliiv fur Keilschriftforschung”])*
Chicago. University. Oriental Institute. Assyriological studies
(Chicago, 1931 ).
Jacobsen, Thorkild. Philological notes on Eshnunna and its
inscriptions (1934).
Pennsylvania. University. The Babylonian expedition of the
University of Pennsylvania. Series A: Cuneiform texts, ed. by
H. V. Hilprecht (Philadelphia, 1893-1014).
Hilprecht, H. V. Old Babylonian inscriptions, chiefly from Nip-
pur (1893-96).
Myhrman, David W. Sumerian administrative documents
(1910).
PoEBEL, Arno. Babylonian legal and business documents ....
chiefly from Nippur (1909).
Hilprecht, H. V. Mathematical, metrological and chronologi-
cal tablets from the temple library of Nippur (1906).
Langdon, S. H. Historical and religious texts from the temple
library of Nippur (1914).
British Museum. (Followed by catalogue number.)
British Museum. Budge collection.
Pennsylvania. University. University Museum, Catalogue of
the Babylonian section.
Acadtoie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Pari^. Coraptes ren-
dus des seances (Paris, 1858 ).
British Museum. Cuneiform texts from Babylonian tablets, &c.,
in the British Museum (London, 1896 ).
Sarzec, Ernest de. D6couvertes en Chaldee. II. Partie 4pi-
graphique et planches (Paris, 1884-1912),
Smith, Sidney. Early history of Assyria to 1000 b.c. (London,
1928).
PoEBEL, Arno. Grundztige der sumerischen Grammatik (Ros-
tock, 1923).
Nies, J. B,, and Reiser, C. E. Historical, religious, and econom-
ic texts and antiquities (Babylonian inscriptions in the collec-
tion of James B. Nies. II [New Haven, Conn., 1920]).
xiii
xiv
ITT
ITT II 1-2
ITT IV
JAOS
JRAS
JSOR
KAH I
KAH II
KAR
KAT^
KAV
Ki
IMDF
MDP XXII-
MJ
MVAG
OECT
DECT II
OIP
OIF XLIII
OLZ
PBS
PBS IV 1
PBSY
PBS VIII 1
PBS VIII 2
PBSX2
List of Abbeetiations
istanbuL Asan Atika Muxeleri. Inventaire des tablettes de Tello
conserv^es au Mus4e imp6rial ottoman (Paris, 1910-21).
Genoitillac, Henei be. Textes de F4poque dbVgade et de Fe-
poqiie d’Ur (1910-11).
Delapoete, Louis. Textes de F4poqne d’Ur (1912).
American Oriental Society. Journal (Boston etc. , 1 849 ) .
Ro3"al Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Journal
(London, 1834
Society of Oriental Research. Journal (Chicago etc., 1917^ — — ).
British Museum. Kouyunjik collection.
Messbrschmidt, Leopoeb. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur his-
torischen Inhalts (IFFDOff XVI [Leipzig, 1911]).
ScHROEDER, Otto. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen In-
halts {WVDOG XXXVII [Leipzig, 1922]).
Ebeling, Erich. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiosen Inhalts
{WVDOG XXVIII 1-4 and XXXIV 1-5 [Leipzig, 1919—]).
ScHR^y)ER, Eberhard. Die Keilinschriften iind das Alte Testa-
ment (3. Aufl., .... neu bearb. yon H. Zimmern und H.
Winckler; Berlin, 1903).
ScHROEDER, Otto. Kcilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen In-
halts (WVDOG XXXY [Leipzig, 1920]).
British Museum. Edng collection.
France. D^l^gation en Perse. M4moires (Paris, 1900- ),
■XXIV ScHEiL, J. V. Actes juridiques susiens (1930-33).
Pennsylvania. University. University museum. The Museum
journal (Philadelphia, 1910 ),
Vorderasiatisch-aegyptische Gesellschaft, Berlin, Mitteilungen
(Berlin, 1896-1908; Leipzig, 1909 ).
Oxford editions of cuneiform texts (VoL I: . inscriptions'' ;
London, 1923 ),
Langdon, S. H. Historical inscriptions, containing principally
the chronological prism, W-B. 444 (1923).
Chicago. University. Oriental Institute. Oriental Institute pub-
lications (Chicago, 1924
Frankfort, H., Lloyd, S., and Jacobsen, T. The Gimilsin
temple and the palace of the rulers at Tell Asmar (in press).
Orientalistische literaturzeitung (Berlin, 189B-1908; Leipzig,
1909 ).
Pennsylvania. University. University museum. Publications of
the Babylonian section (Philadelphia, 1911 ),
PoEBEL, Arno. Historical texts (1914).
PoEBEL, Arno. Historical and grammatical texts (1914).
Chiera, Edward. Legal and administrative documents from
Nippur (1914).
Chiera, Edward. Old Babylonian contracts (1922).
Langdon, S. H. Sumerian Hturgical texts (1917).
PBS XL 1
PBS XIII
PBS XV
R
RA
REC
EISA
RLa
ETC
SAK
SEM
§L
SRT
TMH
TRS
U
UE
UEl
UE II
VET
UETl
VAT
W-B
List of Abbheviations xv
Chibra, Ebwabb. Lists of personal names from the temple
school of Nippur (1916).
Legraih, Leon. Historical fragments (1922),
Legbain, Leon.' Royal inscriptions and fragments from Ni|)pur
and Babylon (1926).
Rawmnson, Sir Henry, The cuneiform inscriptions of Western
Asia (5 vols.; London, 1861-84; Vol. IV, 2d ed., 1891).
Revue d^assyrioiogie et d’arch^ologie orientale (Paris, 1884— — ).
THXJRBAtr-DANGiN, FRANCOIS. Recherclies sur Forigine de F^cri-
tore cun^iforme (Paris, 1898).
Barton, George A. The royal inscriptions of Burner and Akkad
(New Haven, Conn., 1929).
Reallexikon der Assyriologie, hrsg. von Erich Ebeling .... und
Bruno Meissner (Berlin und Leipzig, 1932 ).
Thurbau-Dangin, Francois. Recueil de tablettes chald^ennes
(Paris, 1903).
Thureau-Dangin, Francois. Die sumerischen und akkadischen
Konigsinschriften (Leipzig, 1907).
Chiera, Edward. Sumerian epics and myths (DIP XV. Cunei-
form series. HI [Chicago, 1934]).
Deimel, Anton. Sumerisches Lexikon (2. Aufl.; Roma,
1930—).
Chiera, Edward, Sumerian religious texts (Crozer Theological
Seminary, Babylonian publications. I [Upland, Pa., 1924]).
Jena. Universitat. Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor
Hiiprecht Coiiection of Babylonian Antiquities ini Eigentum
der Universitat Jena (Leipzig, 1932 ).
Genouillac, Henri de. Textes religieux sumtons du Louvre.
I~II (Paris. Mus4e national du Louvre. Textes cuneiformes.
XV-XVI [Paris, 1930]).
Joint Expedition of the British Museum and of the Museum of
the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia. Ur collection.
Joint Expedition of the British Museum and of the Museum of
the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia. Ur excava-
tions (London, 1927 ).
Hall, H. R., and Woolley, C. L. Al-^Ubaid (1927).
Woolley, C. L. The royal cemetery (1934).
Joint Expedition of the British Museum and of the Museum of
the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia. Ur excava-
tions; texts (London, 1928-^ ).
Gadd, C. J., and Legrain, L. Royal inscriptions (1928).
Berlin, Staatliehe Museen. Vorderasiatische Abteilung. Thon-
tafelsammlung,
Oxford. University. Ashmolean Museum. H. Weld-Blundell col-
lection.
xvi
WZKM
ros
ros I
ZA
ZDMG
List of Abbreviations
Wiener 25eitsc}irift ftir die Kunde des Morgenlandes (Wien,
1887—).
Yale Oriental series. Babylonian texts (New Haven, Conn.,
1915 ).
Clay, A. T. Miscellaneous inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian
collection (1915).
Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete (Leipzig,
1886—).
Deutsche morgenlandische Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift (Leipzig,
1847 ).
I
INTRODUCTION
The first fragment of the Sumerian King List of any importance was pub-
lished by Hilprecht in 1906/ the second by Scheil in 1911.“ The following ten
years saw a steady stream of new material appear: four important texts were
published by Poebel in 1914/ two more by Legrain in 1920-21/ and lastly, in
1923, came the magnificent Weld-Blundell prism,® which in many respects was
to close the earlier phase of the study of our document.
The interest which this material aroused in the scientific world was consider-
able, and numerous scholars took up the problems which it presented. Besides
the names already mentioned we might cite Gadd, Langdon, Eduard Meyer,
Thureau-Dangin, Ungnad, and many others.® As was natural, considering the
fragmentary state of the material and the gradual way in which it accumu-
> XX 1 (1906) chap. iv.
2 (JR, 1911, pp. 606-20.
^ PBS V, Nos. 2-5. The reverse of No. 5 had been published earlier by Hilprecht (see
n. 1); the obverse was new.
(1920) 175-80; ilf/ XII (1921) 75-77; PBS Xlll, Nos. 1-2.
® Langdon, OECT II, Pis. I-IV. Since then fragments of Elamite versions have been
published by Scheil in EA XXXI (1934) 149-66.
® Without attempting completeness we may quote the following:
After ScheiFs text (CR, 1911, pp. 606-20): E. Hrozn^- in WZKM XXVI (1912) 143-62;
F. X. Kugler in ZA XXVII (1912) 242-45; Eduard Meyer in Preussische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Siizungsberichie XXXI (1912) 1062-88, and in his Gesckichte des Altertiims
I 2 (Stuttgart und Berlin, 1913) § 329a; F. B. Peiser in QLZ XV (1912) 154 f.; Poebel ibid,
col. 290; A. H. Sayee in Society of Biblical Archaeology, Proceedings XXXIV (1912) 165-72;
Scheil in EA IX (1912) 69; Thureau-Dangin ibid. pp. 33-37 and 81-83 and in his La ckrono-
logic des dynasties de Sumer et d^Accad (Paris, 1918) p. 65.
After PoebeFs texts: G. A. Barton in ikfJ VI (1915) 55-58 and in Journal of Biblical LiL
erature XXXIV (1915) 1-9; L. Delaporte in Eevue de Vhistoire des religions LXXII (1915)
183-86; F. Hommel in J. B. Nies, Ur Dynasty Tablets (^^Assyriologische Bibiiothek'’ XXV
[Leipzig, 1920]) pp. 205-7; L. W. Kingy Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew
Tradition, {The Schweich Lectures ^ [London, 1918]) pp. 27-40; T. G. Pinches in Exposi-
tory Times XXVII (Edinburgh, 1915/16) 517-21; Poebel, PBS IV 1, pp. 71-140.
After Legrain’s texts: A. T. Clay in JAOS XLI (1921) 241-03; C. J. Gadd, The Early
Dynasties of Sumer and Ahkad ('The Eothen Series” I [London, 1921]); Hommei, "Zur alt-
babyionischen Konigsliste,” Beitrdge zur morgenlandischen Altertumskunde III (Munchen,
1922) 33-36; Langdon in Expository Times XXXII (1920/21) 410-13; Poebel in ZA XXXIV
(1922) 39-53; Thureau-Dangin in RA XVIII (1921) 153 f.; A. Ungnad in ZA XXXIV 1-14;
L. Waterman in AJSL XXXIX (1922/23) 233-47.
1
2
The StTMERiAH ■KiNa, BisT' : ' . .
lated, most of these studies were concerned primarily with the reconstruction
of the text, the placing of the known fragments, and^ up of gaps.
The reliability of the information contained in the fragments was rarely
seriously questioned. Most scholars inclined to accept it at face value and
saw the chief difficulty in the fragmentary state of our knowledge of the text:
“The royal canon when complete would be a most precious document and
would help us to fix the lines of Babylonian history from the legendary time
of the longs after the flood, down to the end of the Isin dynasty.”^ The opti-
mistic view prevalent and the enthusiasm at seeing the gaps gradually fill up
is vividly expressed by Gadd in the introduction to The Early Dynasties of
Sumer and Akkad (p. v):
The acquisition of a complete and trustworthy scheme for the foundations of the
oldest history of even one well-defined region in the ancient world is no mean addition
to science, and perhaps only those who work in less favoured fields can duly appreciate
the fortune of the Assyriologist in this important respect. Thanks to discoveries which
date almost entirely from the last ten years, this claim can now be made with confidence
for the early period of history in Babylonia. This short essay is an attempt to utilise
the latest available material, which seems to afford sufficient indications to furnish at
last an entirely connected scheme of chronology, which rests, not upon conjecture, but
upon the evidence of written records, that are, in comparison, almost as old as the
events which they commemorate.
Only two years later, however, Langdon published the Weld-Blundell prism,
which gives the text of the King List almost complete. The publication of this
text, it is true, confirmed in a very gratifying manner the results of the early
phase of the study of the Eng List. The placing of the known fragments and
the reconstruction of the gaps had for the major part been correct. The text
now available also showed, however, that a number of important rulers whom
one would certainly have expected to find in the King List were not there; and
when excavations at al-^^Ubaid in that same year revealed an inscription men-
tioning one early king who was listed, Mes-Anne-pada, it was at once obvious
that this king could not possibly have reigned so far back in time as his posi-
tion in the King List would suggest.
The result of these new facts was a wave of rapidly growing skepticism.
The discrepancy between the actual date of Mes-Anne-pada, as indicated by
the orthography of his inscription, and the early place to which he was assigned
in the King List gave point to a chronicle to which Weidner called attention in
1923 and again in 1926, which indicated that several dynasties listed as con-
secutive in the King List must in reality have been contemporaneous. Around
these observations and around the facts that so many kings who were to be
7 Legrain, FBS XIII 15.
Introduction
3
expected in the King List are not mentioned there and that so many of the
older rulers mentioned appear with unbelievably long reigns^ center most of
the comments on the King List after 1923.^ Only a few have taken as lenient
a view as Gadd/ that ^‘in the main it presents a true summary of the order of
events in the early kingdoms of Sumer, it doubtless preserves substantially the
order in which cities rose to predominance, and the names of many of their
most celebrated rulers, or as Weidner,^® who only makes the reservation that
'‘seine restlose Auswertung fur die Geschichtswissenschaft wird freilich erst
moglich sein, wenn Chroniken und historische Inschriften uber das zeitliche
Verhaltnis der Dynastien zueinander die notige Aiifklarung gegeben habeii
werden/^ More scholars lean toward the view of Eduard Meyer, who, admit-
ting that some of the information of the King List may go back to reliable
historical sources, continues :
Wie weit es freilich den Gelehrten zu Ende des dritten Jaiirtausends noch moglich
war, den wahren geschichtlichen Zusammenhang einigermassen festzuhaiten oder
wiederherzusteiien, bleibt fragiich genug; man wird vermuten diirfen, dass Dynastien,
die in den einzelnen Stadten nebeneinander bestanden und urn das Oberkonigtum ran-
gen, falschiich als aufeinander folgend betrachtet worden sind .... und dass nicht
selten einzelne Namen, die sich erhalten batten, aneinander gereiht und zu Dynastien
verbunden sind. Daneben ist die Einwirkung von Volkssagen erkennfoar.^^
The extreme consequences of these premises, finally, were sharply drawn by
Landsberger in 1931:
Der Wert der Konigsliste, der selbst in historisch voUig klaren Perioden wegeii ihrer
Gepflogenheit, gleichzeitig regierende Dynastien liintereinander aiifzufuhren, be-
schrankt ist, ist f iir diese alten Zeiten noch geringer, wie sich aus den hohen Regierungs-
daten, dem Fehlen wichtiger Namen wie Me-silim und Lugai-kisal-si ergibt. Wir haben
8 Doubts concerning the reliability of the data for the dynasties of Kish and Akshak given
in Scheil’s list had been expressed already in 1913 by Meyer, Geschichte des AUertums I 2
§ 329a, and later, in 1918, by Thureau-Dangin, La chronologie ... , p. 65.
Of the literature on the King List after the publication of Langdon’s text we may quote
H. Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill (1924) 19-35 and A. Deimei, Die alihahylonische Konigsliste
und Hire Bedeutung fur die Chronologie (Rom, 1935), who are chiefly concerned with the text
of the list. The inconsistencies of its data and the extent of its historical value have been dis-
cussed by Gadd in UE 1 128-40; Langdon, Excavations at Kish I (Paris, 1924) 5 f.; B. Lands-
berger in OLZ XXXIV (1931) 118 f.; Meyer, Die dltere Chroriologie BabylonienSj Assyriens
und Agyptens (Stuttgart und Berlin, 1925) pp. 27-39; Sidney Smith, EH A, pp. 18-44;
E. Unger in OLZ XXXVII (1934) 363 f.; A. Ungnad, Suhartu (Berlin und Leipzig, 1936)
p. 35; Weidner in Archivfur Keilschnfiforschung I (1923) 95 and in AOF III (1926) 198 f.
An effort to trace the genesis of textual errors in the Agade dynasty was made by me in
Acta Orientalia V (1927) 302-9. The question of what sources underlie the King List is dis-
cussed by H. G, Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII (1934) 2-7 and by Sidney Smith, op. dt p. 29.
® History and Monuments of Ur (London, 1029) p. 67.
AOF III 199. Die dUere Chrotwlogie . . . . , p. 38.
4
The Sxjmeeian King List
don Eindruck, dass die in der spateren 2eit durch die Sage beriihmt gewordenen Gestal-
ton an beliebiger Steile als Djmastiengrunder untergebracht wurden. Jedenfalls sind
bier selir versciiledenartige Quellen ohne richtige historiscbe Tradition kompiliert wor-
den. Daram ergibt sichj dass wir uns von dev Kdnigsliste voUstmdig etmnzipierm mussen,
Hdclist(‘nsS, dass wir ihr noclx ganz rohe Kenntnis der relativen Aufeinanderfolgeii zu-
traiien, so dass z.B. ein Name, der sick in der 9. Dynastie findet, nicbt vor die 3. zu
setzen
A strong element of uncertainty concerning the value of the King List has
unquestionably been introduced; for, although Landsberger may have stated
the consequences more sharply than others, these consequences have been
drawn in practice. In late years the study of the King List has come almost to
a standstill, and its evidence is hardly ever used for purposes of chronology.
But complete disregard of the King List and its evidence is not justifiable. It
must be the purpose of further study to penetrate this general uncertainty and
to define as far as possible just what is unreliable in the King List and what is
not. The present essay represents an effort in this direction and endeavors to
reach a clearer estimate of the historical value of this document by a study of
the development of its text, the time of its composition, the sources used by
its author, and the manner in which those sources were treated. We are here
in many respects continuing lines of investigation suggested by other scholars,
notably Weidner and Sidney Smith, but point in the main to new ways of ap-
proach. It is our hope that this essay will contribute to bringing the study of
the King List out of the dead water in which it now lies.
OLZ XXXIV 119; italics ours.
TEXTUAL PROBLEMS
THE INDIVIDUAL MANUSCRIPTS
The texts which are of importance for the study of the Sumerian King List
are the following:
WB Ashmolean Museum 1923.444. PubHshed by Langdon, OECT II, Pis.
I-IV. Transliteration and translation with valuable notes on pp.
WB begins with the rulers before the flood and continues with only
minor gaps to S!n-magir of the dynasty of Isin. The provenience of
the text is given as Larsa.^*" If we assume, as seems most probable, that
the scribe carried his copy up to date, WB must have been written in
the 11th year of Sin-magir; for the list ends with this ruler and assigns
to him a reign of 11 years.^ This dating is supported by the character
of the writing, which can hardly be placed later than the middle of the
1st dynasty of Babylon,®
P 2 CBS 13981.^ Published by Poebel, PBS V, No. 2; photograph on
PL XC. Transliteration and translation in Poebel, PBS IV 1, pp. 73-78,
The obverse of P 2 begins in the first half of the 1st dynasty of Kish
and carries on with only small gaps to the end of the 1st dynasty of Ur.
The reverse lists four kings of the Isin dynasty and has two valuable
columns of summaries of the dynasties originally listed by the tablet.
P 2 was found in Nippur by the Babylonian Expedition of the University
^Transliteration and translation of this source may be found also in Barton, RISAj
pp. 346-55, and Deimel, Die althabylonische Konigsliste, pp. 14-29.
Langdon {OECT II 1) states that it was ^ Vritten in Larsa.^' Deimel, op. dt. pp. 29 f.,
states that it comes from Kish, Is this a mistake?
^Cf. Langdon, OECT II 1 and esp. 21, n. 6: “The prism must have been written at
the end of the reign of Sinmagir for Damik-ili-shu the last king is omitted.'^
® WB uses consistently the forms ^ and for dumu and nam. These forms became
relatively rare already before Hammurabi. In documents of this ruler and later dumu gener-
ally takes the form ^ or and nam is written ^ . Similarly WB uses ^ for mu and
for Bi, forms which are not frequent after the 30th year of Hammurabi, when ^ and or
Pp become the current forms. Lastly oa, which in WB takes the form is seldom writ-
ten with more than two horizontal wedges after the reign of Hammurabi, when the forms
and flourish.
^ See Legrain, PBS XIII 17.
5
6 The Shmeriah King List
of Pennsylvania. The text has been dated by Poebel to the 4th year of
Enlil-bam.*'^
Ps CBS 13094.® Published by Poebel, PBS V, No. 3; photograph on PL
XCL Transliteration and translation in Poebel, PBS IV 1, pp. 78-80.
The obverse of P 3 covers— with two large gaps— the 1st dynasty of
Kish and ends with the first king of the 1 st dynasty of Uruk. The re-
verse has portions of the dynasties of Akshak and Agade. P 3 was found
in Nippur by the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsjd-
vania. The date of the text cannot be determined with certainty. We
may guess at approximately the middle of the 1st dynasty of Babylon.*^
P 4 CBS 13293.® Published by Poebel, PBS V, No. 4; photograph on PL
XCL Transliteration and translation in Poebel, PBS IV 1 , pp. 80 f.
P 4 has on the obverse the summary of the 4th dynasty of Uruk and
the beginning of the dynasty of Gutiurn. The reverse preserves rem-
nants of a final summary. P 4 was found in Nippur by the Babylonian
Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. Since the fragment is
small, definite epigraphical clues to its date are lacking. The general
character of the writing suggests, however, that it belongs in the period
of the 1 st dynasty of Babylon. Poebel assumes that it was written in
the 23d year of Damiq-ilishu, but it is doubtful whether such close dat-
ing is possible.®
^ FBS IV 1, p. 98: . the summary in Column 10 assigns to the dynasty of Isin
only 11 kings and 159 years instead of 16 kings and 225 years, a fact which can be explained
only on the assumption that the eleventh king of Isin was the ruling monarch when the
list was drawn up. Figuring from the number of years given to the various kings of Isin in
Est No. 5, the first year of Enlil-bani, the eleventh king of Isin, was the 156th year of the
kingdom of Isin, and it is thus clear that the list was finished in the fourth year of Enlii-bani.”
The writing on the tablet is in perfect accord with this dating.
8 See Legrain, PBS XIII 17.
^ Even the writing does not give a clue, as the indications are too vague. We have based
our guess on the fact that such consistent use of the simple form for mu as this ms. ex-
hibits fits in better around the middle or toward the end of the dynasty than at the begin-
ning, while the forms ^ and ^ for ga are relatively rare after the reign of Hammurabi.
« See Legrain, PBSXlll 17,
8 Poebel arrives at this date {PBS IV 1, pp. 98 f. and 102 f.) by comparing the grand
total of P4, 139 kings in 32,243 years, x months, and 18(?) days, with that of P2, 134 kings
in 28, 800 (+^?) +76 years, y montlis, and 21(?) days, and by explaining the surplus of
kings and years as due to the fact that P4 was written later than P2. Having already dated
P2 to the 4th year of Enlil-bani, he can place P4, which has 5 more kings than P2, in the
reign of the fifth king after Enlil-bant, Damiq-ilishu. The 3,367 years which P4 has more
than P2 cannot, of course, be distributed among the five kings between Enlil-bani and Da-
miq-ilishu; but Poebel plausibly points out that the tens and units of the two totals 32,243
Textual Problems
7
Ps CBS 19797.*® Published by Poebel, PBS V, No. 5.*‘ Transliteration
and translation in Poebel, PBS IV 1, pp. 82 f.
The obverse of Ps contains the middle part of the 1st dynasty of
Kish; the reverse deals with the 3d dynasty of Ur and the dynasty of
Isin. Pb was found in Nippur by the Babylonian Expedition of the
University of Pennsylvania. It may be dated from the character of
the writing to the second half of the 1st dynasty of Babylon.*"
Pe CBS 15365.*® Only the reverse of this fragment has been published, and
in transliteration and translation only, by Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 81.**
Col. i of the reverse has portions of a djmasty in which Sumu-abum—-
probably Sumu-abum of Babylon — occurs. Col. ii has remnants of a
and 28,800( -f-a:?) -|-76 have a better chance of being correct than the other parts of the fig-
ures, so that the original difference may have been 67 years, the difference between the
tens and units of the two totals. This difference, 67 years, is — according to Poebel — exactly
the distance in years from the 4th year of Enlil-banl to the last year of Damiq-ilishu, if we
accept the evidence of P^; i.e., the difference in the totals of years points to the same ruler
as the difference in the totals of kings had already indicated. Poebel therefore concludes
that P 4 was written in the 23d year of Damiq-ilishu-
It will easily be seen that the strength of this argument lies in the convergence of two
independent lines of evidence upon the same reign. The difference in the number of kings
points to Damiq-ilishu, and the difference in years also points to the reign of that ruler.
However, as seen by Mrs. Ruth S. Brookens of the Editorial Department of the Oriental
Institute, the difference of 67 years does not, as assumed by Poebel, correspond to the
distance in years from the 4th year of Enlil-banl to the last year of Damiq-ilishu as given
in P 5 , for that distance (20+34'4-b4-f ll-j-23) amounts to no more than 65 years. In
other words, the 67 years which should represent the difference in date between the writing
of P 2 and the writing of P 4 carry the latter beyond the reign of Damiq-ilishu, and there is
thus no longer agreement between the evidence from the number of kings and that from
the number of years. We must therefore accept Mrs. Brookens’ conclusion that the evidence
does not permit exact dating of the fragment.
i‘>See Legrain, XIII 17.
The reverse of the tablet had been published earlier by Hilprecht, BE XX 1 (1906)
PL 30, No. 47; photographs of both obverse and reverse are given on his PI. XY.
^®To the latter half of the 1 st dynasty point the forms and pT of bi and da.
That the text was written after Samsu-iluna is also shown, as Poebel has pointed out in
PBjS IV 1, p. 83, n. 5, by the fact that the divine name Irra is written with the determina-
tive d i n g i r .
See Legrain, PBS XIII 17 f. According to the information given there the tablet has
now disappeared.
Hommel (in J. B. Nies, Ur BynoBty TabUU^ p. 205), who claims to have been the
first to identify the fragment (*‘des erst von mir in seiner Wichtigkeit erkannten und richtig
eingereihten Fragments G.B.S. 15365’0> states that the obverse is destroyed (^'der abge-
wetzte Obv. enthieit .... Teile von Dyn. I und Uruk I”).
8
Thb Sumeeiah Ema List
dynasty sumraary.^*'^ Ps was found in Nippur by the Babylonian Ex-
pedition of the University of Pennsylvania. Its date is unknown.
Tbe identification of the dynasties listed on this fragment presents difficulties. Poebel,
who pu})lished it^ left the question open {FBS IV 1, p. 95). HommeFs suggestion (in Nies,
op. eit p. 205, n. 4) that coL i contains part of the d 3 ma 8 ty of Isin and that the city name
missing in col. ii should be restored as Akshak cannot be correct and has rightly been re-
jected by Legrain (PBS XIII 18). A definite solution of the problem can hardly be given
until we get more material concerning the dynasties ruling in Babylonia in the Isin period,
hut we may at least offer a suggestion.
CoL 1 contains a list of rulers not known elsewhere:
4[+x
[r - r a - . . .
1
i-ad
d u m u]
11 [r -
d u m u
6 m u
su-mu-a-bu-u [m]
1 1 u 8
[i-k]u-un-pi (ka?) - i
. mu]
n u - m u “ [u n - 1 u k]
I - as
1 1 a r (e §4 - 1 d r ?)
i - as
N.
reigned 4-{-x years.
Irra(?)- .... (less likely:
divine Warad- ....), son of
Ur-....,
did not get a son;
he reigned 6 years.
Sumu-abiim
reigned 8 months.
Ikdn-pt-Eshtar
reigned . . years.
Since the names so clearly belong in the Isin-Larsa period, we must assume that our list
was written in a city which at that period had independent rulers and that the scribe
added the local dynasty to his copy of the King List. This assumption is confirmed and
the choice of city is narrowed down when we compare col. ii:
[ ]
[SU-NIGIN . . 1 u g] a 1
[m]u-bi 125
i b-as
[a-r]4 6- kam
[si\. .]. .*^-a
[sU-NIGIN . . 1 u g a] 1
[ ]
Total: . . kings
its 125 years
reigned
six times
in.....
Total: . . kings
etc.,
for we find here a city which has been ruling city as many as six times. The classical edition
of the King List knows only one city which comes up toward this figure, namely Uruk,
which was ruling city five times; and from contemporaneous documents we know that
Uruk actually did have independent kings during part of the Isin-Larsa period. If we as-
sume therefore that it is the local dynasty of Uruk which is treated in col. i (the name of
Sumu-abum might then stand for a short Babylonian domination), the total of six dynasties
in col. ii becomes correct, inasmuch as the scribe had the hve classical dynasties plus the
local dynasty of the Isin-Larsa period to sum up.
One difficulty with this explanation must, however, be mentioned. The city name in
col. ii appears as [ J. - a . If the city name to be restored is actually Uruk, we should
have expected [ ]. .^*-ga(t), i.e., [un]u^-ga. tes important is the fact that the
figure giving the total ixumber of years for the six dynasties does not agree with what we
might expect from the five known dynasties of Uruk plus a dynasty of the Isin-Larsa period,
for it is obvious that the total is corrupt; 125 years is much too small a span of time for
six dynasties.
9
Textual Peoblems
Li CBS 14220. Published, by Legraiu, PBS XIII, No. Trausliteratkm
and translation on pp. 25-28. A photograph of the text is published at
the end of the volume on PL 11.
The text of Li covers, with several large gaps, the period from the
end of the 1st dynasty of TJr to the beginning of the Isin dynasty. Li was
found in Nippur by the Babylonian Expedition of the University of
Pennsylvania. It may be dated to approximately the first half of the
1st dynasty of Babyion.^^
U CBS 14223. ; Published by Legrain, PBS XIII, No. 2. Transliteration
and translation on p. 24.
The obverse of L 2 lists three rulers of the 1st dynasty of Kish. The
reverse of the fragment is uninscribed. L 2 was found in Nippur by the
Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania. Its date is
uncertain.
S BM 108857. Last published by Gadd, The Early Dynasties of Sumer
and Akkad (1921) Pis. 1-2.^^ Transliteration and translation on
pp.3-7.
S begins with the dynasty of Akshak and carries on, with a gap in
the middle of the Agade dynasty, to the end of the 4th dynasty of Uruk.
The provenience of the tablet is unknown. The character of the writing
suggests that it was written in the second half of the 1st d 3 oiasty of
Babylon.^^
The text consists of two fragments which join. Both fragments had been published
earlier by Legrain, the first in MJ XI (1920) 175-80, the second in MJ XII (1921) 75-77.
A transliteration and translation of the first fragment, made from the photograph in Le-
grain^s article, was given by Gadd in The Early Dynasties of Sumer and Akkad, pp. 9-12.
Cf. also the transliteration and translation given by Ungnad and Poebel in ZA XXXIV
(1922) 2-8 and 14 and 39-42 respectively.
An upper date limit is represented by the reign of IshmI-Bagan, who is mentioned in
coL X, while the forms for ga and ^ for bi and the consistent use of ^ rather than ^
for MU are rare in the latter half of the 1st dynasty of Babylon and thus suggest the middle
of this dynasty as a likely lower limit.
The first publication of the tablet was by Scheil in OB, 1911, pp, 606-20. In EA IX
(1912) 69 Scheii gave further results obtained when the tablet was cleaned and an excellent
photograph. Thureau-Dangin also has published a copy of the tablet in La chronologic des
dynasties de Sumer et d'Acced^ pp. 59 f.
The forms and M for bi and ga respectively and the consistent use of rather
than ^ for mu point to the later part of the 1st dynasty of Babylon. Cf. Gadd, op. dt. p.
1, who dates the tablet merely to the 1st dynasty of Babylon.
10 The Sumerian Kinu List ■ I ;
Sill Published by Scheil in RA XXXI (1934) 150 f. Transliteration and
translation on pp. 152'“"59.
Sui contains portions of the 1st dynasty of Eish (col. i), the 1st dy-
nasty of Uriik (col. ii), the 2d dynasty of Ur (col iv), the dynasties of
Maeri and Akshak (col v), the 4th dynasty of Kish and the 3d dynasty
of Uruk (coL vi), the Agade dynasty (cols, vi-vii), the 4th dynasty of
Uruk (coL vii), and the 3d dynasty of Ur and the dynasty of Isin (col.
viii). The provenience of the text is Susa.^® The writing suggests a date
around the middle of the 1st dynasty of Babylon.^^
Su 2 Published by Scheil in RA XXXI (1934) 160 as Fragment A. Translit-
eration and translation on pp. 159-61.
The obverse of the fragment contains portions of the 1st dynasty of
Kish (cols, i-ii) and of the 1st dynasty of Uruk (col. iii) . The reverse has
not been published (prism?). The provenience of Su 2 is Siisa.^ The
writing suggests a date around the middle of the 1st dynasty of Baby-
lon.^^
Su 3+4 Published by Scheil in RA XXXI (1934) 162 and 164 as Fragments
B and C. Transliteration and translation on pp. 161-66. Only one side
of each fragment has been published. The distribution of the text in
cols, ii, iii, and iv of Fragment B when compared with that in cols, i,
ii, and iii of Fragment C provides clear indications that these two frag-
ments are parts of a single tablet (or prism?) severed by a break which
destroyed two lines at its narrowest point. We are therefore treating
these two fragments as parts of one text.“^
20 Scheil in RA XXXI 149 and in Melanges Maspero I (Cairo. Institut fran^ais d’arche-
ologie orientale du Caire, “M^moires’^ LXVI [Le Caire, 1934]) 393-400.
21 Comparison of the sign forms used in the Su texts with those found in contracts from
Susa dated to the sukkal-mah's Shiruduh-Kutir-Nahhunte (MDP XXII-XXIV,
the texts listed in MDP XXIV i~ii under rulers 2-7) and belonging approximately to the
time of Warad-Stn, Elm-Stn, and Hammurabi shows close affinities, although those in Sui,
Su 2 , and Sua-fi seem to be slightly older. Note especially the forms ga a: ga 6: is:
Nil, LXTGAL a : and ltjgal 6: used in the Su texts. These forms are for the major
part still to be found in the group of contracts mentioned (ga 6 in No. 62, later forms —
etc. — in Nos. 200-201, 131, and 347; is in Nos. 328, 200, and 376, later form with
only two horissontal wedges in Nos. 131 and 347; lugal b in No. 347, slightly more simplified
forms in Nos. 131, 202, and 376) but are in the process of disappearing there.
22 Scheil in RA XXXI 149 ff.
23 See n, 21 above.
2^ If we place the two fragments so that the beginning of col. ii in Fragment C is exactly
two lines below the end of col. iii in Fragment B, as required by the context, then the gaps
Textual Peoblems
11
Sii 3+4 contains portions of the 2d dynasty of ITrak (col i), the 3 d and
4th dynasties of Kish (col ii),. the. 3d dynasty of Uruk (col* ii),, the
dynasty of Agade (col iii)^. the 4th dynasty of Uruk (col iii)^ the dy-
nasty of Gutium (cols, iiWv), the 5th dynasty of Uruk (col iv), and
the 3d dynasty of Ur (col iv). The provenience of SU3+4 is Susa.^^ The
writing suggests a date around the middle of the 1st dynasty of Baby-
lon,2«
K K 8532+K 8533+K 8534. Published by L. W. King, Chronicles cmi-
cerning Early Babylonian Kings II (“Studies in Eastern History’^ III
[London, 1907]) 143-45, Transliteration and translation on pp. 46-56.
An improved transliteration and translation of the first part of the text
was made by Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 84.
The fragment starts with the antediluvian kings and ends with
M4rbiti-apal-u§ur. Of the older sections hardly anything is preserved ex-
cept a few names belonging to the 1st dynasty of Kish. The provenience
of the tablet is, as shown by the museum number, Kiiyunjik. It is
Late Assyrian.
between col. ii of B and col. i of C and between col. iv of B and col. iii of C will fit exactly
the number of lines which the Kang List has at these places;
Col. II Col. Ill Col. IV
To make such a restoration with fragments belonging to different tablets or prisms would
be possible only if the two tablets were exact duplicates, following each other line for line
and spacing the lines exactly alike on the columns. Such close correspondence is in itself
unlikely (one such rare case is that of WB and J; see p. 49). It may be ruled out altogether
in the present instance, for a glance at the fragments will suffice to show that the spacing
of the lines is so haphazard and varied that it can have been guided only by chance and the
immediate convenience of the scribe.
25 Scheil in RA XXXI 149 ff .
25 See n. 21 above.
12
The Shmeeiak Kma List
G Published by H. de Genouiliac, Fouilles frangaises d/el-^Akhy7ner, Pre-
mieres recherches archeologiques a Kick II (PariSj 1925) PI. 21, C. 112.
G, a fairly small fragment, preserves remnants of two columns. The
one to the left (vii) deals with the beginning of the Gutian dynasty, that
to the right (vi) with the beginning of the dynasty of Akshak.^1 The
obverse (wrongly called “reverse”!) is destroyed. The fragment was
found in the French excavations at Kish and may be dated, from the
general character of the writing, to the second half of the 1st dynasty
of Babylon.
J Unpublished fragment in the collection of the writer.^®
The fragment may be restored as follows:
Col. vii
[ki-su“lu-ub 4 -gar gu-ti-u m^]
[i u g a 1 m u] u - 1 u
[im-ta-a lugal-ilm 3 m]u i-aj
[i n - k i - § u s 6 m] u i - as
[s a (?) - a r - 1 a - g a b 6] m u i - W
[§ u I - m e - e ] 6 m [u i - as]
[e " 1 u - 1 u - m e - e §] 7 m [ii i - as]
[i - n i - m a - b a - k i - e] § 5 [mu i - as]
[i-ge 4 -e§-'a-u]§ ''6^ [rnu i-as]
Got vi
U4-kusti‘'‘-a u[n-2;i lugal-tlm
30m u i- as]
un-da-iu-lu [12 mu i - as}
ur-ur [6 mu i-as]
p li z u r -% i [r a h 20 mu i - as]
§ u - i r [24 m u i - as]
[ ]
etc.
See plate at end. The text reads:
Obv.
[kUsu-lu-ubi-gar] The host of
gu-ti-um^ Gutium
[«‘®f t ukuTba-sig was smitten with weapons;
[n a m] - 1 u g a i - b i its kingship
[u n u - ba-tiim was carried to Uruk.
5 [u n - ga ‘*utu-h<^"g^l In Uruk Utu~hegal
[1 u g a 1] - m mu 7 h t u’ 6 U4 [15 i - as] became king and reigned 7 years, 6 months,
and 15 days.
1 1 u g a 1 1 king
[m u - b i 7] i t u 6 lu 15 i - ^as^ reigned its 7 years, 6 months, and 15 days,
[u n u f«*»^[t u k u 1] [b] a - s p g] Uruk was smitten with weapons.
Rev.
[i “ b S -]^^'*[s ! n]
dumu §u-f'^^[s'in-ke4l
mu 24 ^-[as]
5iu[gal]
5 [m] u “ b i [. . i b - as]
[u] r - m a ^«i®t ukul ba’-slg
[nj a m - 0 u g a 1 - b P
[1] - s i - i ^ b a ^ t ti m
I(b)bi-Sin,
son of ShU”Stn,
reigned 24 years.
5 kings
reigned its * . years.
Ur was smitten with weapons;
its kingship
was carried to Isin.
13
TeXT.XJA|4 Peoblems
The obverse deals with the; fall of Gutiiim and with Utii-!ie|alj the
reverse with the end of 'the' 3d dynasty of Ur. The provenience of the
fragment is unknown.^® The 'character of the writing suggests a date
around the middle of the 1st dynasty of Babylon.®®
DERIVATION' FROM A SINGLE ORIGINAL
A comparison of the texts listed above will show extensive and detailed
agreement between them both in form and in content. The names of the rulers,
their mutual order, the distribution of the names over the dynasties, and the
order in which the dynasties appear are virtually the same in all the texts. A
similar fundamental agreement is found in the figures given for the reigns of
the single rulers and for the duration of the various dynasties. Finally, the
short historical or genealogical notes which occasionally are found added to
a name appear, whenever they can be traced, at the same places and with
practically the same wording.
Agreement so extensive and detailed as this is unthinkable except between
texts derived from a common source. A single example will suffice to illustrate
the point. The section dealing with Sargon of Agade is preserved in three of
our texts, WB, Li, and S. It takes the form: “Sargon — Ms .... was a date-
grower — cupbearer of Ur-Zababa(k), king of Agade, the one who built Agade
(var.: Rhe one under whom Agade was builtO, became king.^^ In all the texts
this entry differs from those which precede and follow it by giving a certain
amount of historical information. If, now, these three texts were completely
independent of one another we would obviously have to assume (1) that three
different scribes had all independently decided to elaborate this particular
passage with historical information; (2) that it had independently occurred to
each of them to mention Sargon^s origin, his position in life before he became
king, and his founding of Agade, but not any of his political and military
achievements; and finally (3) that all three happened to couch this information
in exactly the same words and to arrange the facts in exactly the same order.
Such an assumption is obviously absurd. The three texts cannot be independ-
ent; and on the basis of this and numerous similar instances we can with ab»
29 The fragment was bought in Baghdad in 1933 together with a small collection of odd
fragments. The dealer could give no information concerning where it came from, as it
had been in his possession a long time.
It corresponds in almost every particular to that of WB and cannot be far from that
text in date.
14
The Shmbriah :Kikg-^IjIst' : ' ■
solute certainty draw the conclusion .that- our- texts are related,, that they .ulti*.
matcly descend from a common original®^
The next step must then be an investigation of the manner in which the
texts are related and how each of them derives from the original. In other
words, we must establish the genealogy of our manuscripts.
GENEALOGY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS
The Postbiluvian Sectioh
The genealogy of versions derived from a common original has to be de-
termined through a study of textual variants and their distribution among the
versions. But our manuscripts of the King List give opportunity for such
study only to a very limited degree. The majority are small fragments. It
is therefore relatively seldom that many of them overlap, and passages com-
mon to several versions, where we might observe the spread of variants, are
few. This scarcity of material is to some extent remedied by the fact that most
of the fragments, even the smaller ones, preserve examples of the formulas
used for single kings, dynasty totals, and changes of dynasty, maldng it pos-
sible to compare parallel passages in versions which do not actually overlap.
Even so, however, the material must be considered meager. It is obvious that
we cannot hope to establish the pedigree of our versions in any great detail but
must content ourselves with determining some of its more prominent lines.
EVIDENCE FROM THE PRINCIPAL VARIANTS
The sections in which we have relatively many manuscripts overlapping so
that we can study the distribution of variants over a fairly large number of
versions are two, namely (1) the middle of the ist dynasty of Kish and (2) the
dynasty of Agade. In addition we can make use of the evidence obtainable
from a study of the formulas for single rulers, dynasty totals, and changes of
d3masty and also of some overlaps of more limited scope, for example the varia-
The view which we have stated here (see also Acta Orientalia V [1927] 302), that our
texts are copies, or copies of copies, of a single original document, seems to be generally
held by scholars, if one may judge from such expressions as “the King List” and “dupli-
cates” used of the various texts concerned. But, since few have paid special attention to
the question, statements of a definite character are rare. We have found only two: Sidney
Smith, EH A, pp. 29 f.: “Where these fragments can be compared, they agree save for trivial
differences in spelling and in the figures assigned to the different reigns; there can be no
doubt that they ali depend upon one original source ..... Wliere there are discrepancies
in the lists they arise partly from scribal errors, possibly due to writing from dictation, partly
from omissions. It is justifiable to assume that the original wording of the source, the first
list, can be inferred from the extant fragments,” and L. W. King, Legends of Babylon and
Egypt, p. 28, n. 1 : “The fragments belong to separate copies of the Sumerian dynastic
record.” But already on p. 30 King refers to the copyist who wrote P 4 as “the compiler of
one of our new lists”!
Textual Problems
15
tion in the position of the 3d dynasty of Kish (Ku(g)-Baba). We may begin
the investigation with the variants in the 1st dynasty of Kish. These form a
group which from its salient feature may be named the “Atabba variants.”
THE ATABBA VARIANTS
The middle part of the 1st dynasty of Kish is preserved in five of our manu-
scripts: WB, Po, Ps, Pr„ and Sui. It takes the forms shown on page
Comparing these versions, we see that the last four, P2, P3, P5, and Sui, are
very much alike. The small variations which occur are easy to account for,
and the original form of the text can be established with confidence. It must
have been
1 g a “ 1 1 - b u - 11 m
2 900 mu i - as
3 ti, - b a
4 [ ] m u i - as
5 d-tab-ba
We arrive at this text through the following considerations:
Lines 1-2 . — As far as they are preserved all four sources agree on these lines,
which must accordingly have appeared thus in the original.
Lines — P 3 reads [a -] b a [ ] m u i - as. P 2 has the same name,
- b a\ but leaves the line giving his reign blank. P 5 also has the name
a “ ^b but the rest of the line is so damaged that we cannot decide
what form it took. Sui, finally, omits both lines. The origin of these varia-
tions is clear. P 3 obviously preserves the original text, which gave both name
and reign. P 2 was copied from a tablet in which the line giving the reign bad
been damaged, just as is now the case with P 5 . The copyist therefore left
that line blank. Sui derives from a version in which both lines had been
damaged and which was copied without indication that a lacuna existed in
that place.
Lines 5-6 . — These lines present a very similar picture. P 3 reads -
t a b - b a 84*‘0'^ mu i - as. P 2 ? Ps, and Sui also have this name (in Sui only
its first sign remains) ; but the line which gives the reign is destroyed in Ps,
For details of readings see the notes to this section in om* edition of the King List (pp.
78-81). In this particular discussion we have, to make comparison easier, adopted a uni-
form distribution of the text in lines for all the manuscripts; and in order to make ortho-
graphical differences between the versions stand out clearly we have here kept closer to the
classical values of the signs than elsewhere. We thus transcribe ga-iu-mu-um in-
stead of q^-lii-mu-um, ka-lu-mu-um instead of q a - 1 u - m u - u m , to make
the differences in the writing more evident, and so on; but we do not go so far as to write
ka-ga-gh-ip rather than zd-ga-gfi-^ipto distinguish it from zu-ga-gu-ip.
The variation between mux and x m u in the formula for introducing single rulers is
discussed in the section ^‘Variants in the Fprmulas^^ (pp. 28 fi.) ; it does not concern us here.
6 840 m u i - as
7 ka-lu-mu-um
8 900 mu i - as
9 zu-ga-gu-ip
10 900 mu I - as
11 a r -"VY i - fi -u m
12 dumu maS-dd-ke 4
13 720 mu i - as
"Vs®'
« g ^ g 42
W) o 05 <© 03
’ c« !=* 4 !=» t ^ T
I S Kl S 'oa S n:3
iO
Texttjaii Pboblbms
17
P 2 leaves it blank, and Sui reads 720 [m u i - as]. Of the figures given by P 3
and Sui it is clear that the 840 of P 3 has the better chance of being original ;
for while it is easy to see how flF (840) passing through a damaged form
fS can become fir (720) in a later copy, the opposite development is im-
probable. The blank in P 2 indicates, as we saw above, that the scribe copied
from a tablet in which this Une had been destroyed.
Lines 7-10. — All four manuscripts give much the same text, which must ac-
cordingly represent that of the original. Doubt might arise as to whether the
name Qalumu(m) was written with ga- (P3), ka- (Ps), or qa - (Sui) in
the original, whether this and the following name Zuqaqip had originally
the subject - e which they take in Pa but not in the others, and whether Zu-
qaqip was written with g U as in Pa, P 3 , and Sui or with k i as in P5. These
questions are, however, of minor importance for the time being and may be
decided arbitrarily. Of more interest is the difference in line 10, where Pa and
P 3 have the figure 900, whereas Sui has 600. Of these 900 must be original,
for rW (900) can easily become P (600) by passing through a damaged
form rra, but there is no way which leads from 600 to 900.
Line 11. — There are four different forms: ar-wi (Pa), far^-bu-um
(P3), ar-wi-ii (P5), and [ar]-wi-um (Sui). Arwi’um means “male
gazelle” and therefore goes with other animal names in this section,®* for ex-
ample Qalumu(m), “lamb,” and Kalibum, “dog.” The most correct writing
of Arwi^m would bear-wi-d-um, and from such a form all our vari-
ants can be effortlessly derived: ar-wi-d, ar-wi, and ar-wi-um
through simple omissions of lost signs by scribes copying damaged originals,
and ar-bu-um through misreading of a damaged form if-- of (w i)
as (b u) and omission of a lost d or through a mishearing in dictation after
ArwPum had been contracted to Arwdm (Arwi^m >Arwu’um> Arwdm).
Lines 12-13. — Only one point could give rise to doubt as to how these lines
read in the original. This is the form d u m u m a § - ex - d a - k 64 in P 3
as against dumu ma§-d§,-ke 4 inall the others. M a § - d 4 can mean
both “gazelle” and muSkinum, “plebeian,” whereas ma§-EN-da means
only mv^hUnum.^ The scribe of P 3 or of one of its ancestors must have con-
On these names cf. Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. Ill; Landsberger quoted by Zimmern in
ZDMO n.F. Ill (1924) 30, n. 8; Albright in AOF III (1926) 181; and Guterbock in ZA
n.F. VIII (1934) 5. Langdon rejects for no reason the reading zd-qd-qu-ip and
proposes ddg-ga-gi-ib (OECT II 10, n. 7).
“ MuHdnum, “plebeian,” is a III/II participle of *ka?&nuin and means originally “one
who prostrates himself.” This servile type of greeting would be characteristic for the lower
part of the population and could therefore be used as a designation of class: “plebeian.”
From Old Akkadian, where the word must have had the form *mulka?mum (cf. the Sar-
18
The -S uMEEiAN Kino List
sidered it more likely that the king was son of a plebeian than son of a gazelle
and liaYe introduced the unequivocal form mas-EN-da. In reality,
however, the fact that the king's name, Arwd^iim, means ^^male gazelle" and
that other names of the dynasty are animal names makes it quite clear that
m a s - d a , ^'gazelle," is the original form.^^
If we now compare the prototype of P2, P3, Ps, and Sui at which we have
just arrived — we may call it — with the text of WB, which we may call
we shall notice a number of very striking differences:
■ ' A ■
B
ga-lf-bu-uni
g a - 1 f - b u - u m
m u 960 1 - as
900 m u 1- as
k a - 1 u - m u
d - b a
m u 840 i - as
[ ] m 11 I - as
zii-ga-gi4-ip
d-tab-ba
m u 900 i - as
840 mu i-as
d-tab
ka-lu-mu-um
m u 600 1 - as
900 m u i - as
d-tab-ba
z u - g a - g i4 - i p
m u 840 i - as
900 m u i - as
ar-wi-d-um
ar-wi-d-um
dumu m a s - d ^ - k 64
dumu ma§-dd-ke4
m u 720 i - as
720 mu i-as
gon passage in Legrain, PBS XV, No. 41 vi 24-26: a-na ^da-gan us-kd-eri), musMnum
seems to have passed into Sumerian; for in the pseudo-ideogram mas-en-kak we may rec-
ognijje an erne- sal form of ma§-da-en (i.e., m a s d a ^ e n). Transpo-
sition of signs, as here of en and kak( = d ^), is a common feature in pseudo-ideograms,
which are merely traditional orthographies inherited from the time before the signs had
to be written in correct order. Similar cases are ’^en-zu for u - e n , zu-ab for a b - z u ,
etc. The assimilation of the u to the following a in *mu§ka=>en >masda=*en is
a common feature in Sumerian (see p. 171, n. 7a) and harmonizes with the well known
preference for a in eme-SAL (cf. Poebel in ZA n.F. Ill [1926/27] 259 and 270). For
the development from kto d cf. Poebel, GSG § 80.
That the author of the King List did not intend to state that Arwi^um was the son
of a plebeian is also clear from the form which the statement takes. When the author wants
to give information concerning the social status of the father of a king, he uses a set formula
which is quite different, namely N. ab-ba-ni x. Cf. ‘^gilgames ab-ba-ni
1 U - 1 d , “Gilgames— his father was a ZfK4-demon,^' and sar-ru-ki-in.. . .-ba-ni
n u - g i r ii 2 , ^^Sargon — his .... was a date-grower.'* We should therefore have had
ar-wi-ii-um ab-ba-ni ma§-d^, ^^ArwPum — his father was a plebeian,** and
not ar-wi-d-um dumu ^^Arwi^um, son of m a § - d ^ The correct
interpretation ofmas-d4asa name meaning * gazelle** was suggested as a possibility
already by Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. Ill, but has hitherto only been accepted by Albright
{JAOS XL [1920] 329; AOF III [1926] 181); by Landsberger (see Zimmern in ZDMG
n.F. Ill [1924] 30, n. 8; Landsberger, Die Fauna des alien Mesapotamien nach der 14- Tafel
der Serie ffAB-ra—})>uhuUu [Leipzig, 1934] p. 100), who first pointed out that Arwpum =
armd, “male gazelle**; and by Gfiterbock {ZA n.F, VIII [1934] 3 and 5),
Textual Peoblems 19
It will be seen first of all that whereas A lists the two rulers A - 1 a b and
a-tab-ba between Zuqaqlp and ArwPum, B places them, as /i-ba and
a-tab-ba, between Kalibum and Qalumu(m). In A, further, Kalibum
is listed with a reign of 960 years, .while 'B gives him. only 900; and Qalu-
Biii(m), who according to A reigned 840 years, reigned 900 years accord-
ing to B.
To decide which of these two texts represents the original text the more
faithfully we must consider the differences one by one. Little information is—
a priori — to be gained from the variant forms a - 1 a b (A) and a - b a (B).
It seems likely that one of these forms originated through influence from the
following name a-tab-ba, but whether a copyist, having written a - ,
continued with - b a instead of -tab because his eye fell upon the final
- b a in the next name, or whether his original had a - b a and he copied it
as a-tab because by mistake he looked at a- tab of the following a-
t a b - b a obviously cannot be safely decided at this point.
A similar case is presented by the varying figure for the reign of Qalumu(m),
which is 840 in A and 900 in B. These figures are written ff? and Pf, Any
copyist knows how difficult it can be to read a figure like this if the surface
of the text is the least bit scratched or damaged, for Pff may equally well
represent either one. An uncertain form like this is probably responsible for
our variant. But whether an original PFf through such a form became Pf
or vice versa remains uncertain.
More helpful are the variants in the reign of Kalibum, which lasted 960
years according to A and 900 according to B, and in the order of the rulers,
which is as follows in the two texts;
- a::
Kalibum
Qalumu(m)
Zuqaqip
Atab
Atabba
Arwimm
Here also, it is true, we must admit that the differences might have arisen
in various ways. But among the possible solutions one stands out as definitely
the most probable because it is so much more simple than the others. If we
assume the text presented by A to be original, a single scribal mistake of a
well known type will lead directly to the arrangement of rulers given by B,
and that mistake will at the same time account for the 900 years which B
ascribes to Kalibum in contrast to the 960 found in A. The scribal mistake
B
Kalibum
Aba
Atabba
Qalumu(m)
Zuqaqip
Arwi^um
20
The Sitmeeian King List
with which we are concerned would have happened as follows: Having copied
the line ga-lf-bu-um, the scribe jumped four lines of his original and
continued with the line after Zuqaqip, m u 900 i - a^ j misled, no doubt, by
the close similarity betw^een this line and the one he should have copied,
m u 960 i-ag He did not realize the mistake but went on copying the
lines dealing with Atab and Atabba:
Original
Copy
ga-H-bii-um
m u 960 i - as
k a - i u - m u
m u 840 1 - as
z li - g a - g 14 - i p
ga-H-bu-ui
m u 900 i - as
m u 900 I-as
4 - 1 a b
4 - 1 a b
mu 600 i-as
mu 600 i-as
4-tab-ba
4-tab-ba
m u 840 i-as
mu 840 i-as
ar-wi-d-um
d u m u m a s - d a - k e4
m u 720 i - as
When the scribe had copied the line mu 840 i-ag, however, and looked
back upon his original to find the continuation, his eye was arrested by the
identical figure, 840, in the line which gave the years of Qalumu(m), and he
discovered his omission. Rather than rewrite what he had already copied, he
took the easy course of inserting the two rulers he had missed at the point
to which he had come when he discovered the mistake. He thus got a list
ga-H-bu-um
in u 900 i - as
4-tab
m u 600 i - as
4-tab-ba
m u 840 i - as
ka-lu-mu
m u 840 i - as
2ti-ga-gi4-ip
m u 900 i - as
ar-wi-fi-um
durau ma§-d4-ke4
m u 720 i - as
Of. the exactly similar mistake in the Agade section discussed on p. 27.
Textual Peoblems
21
.lias the. rulers, in the exact order in which they appear in B and wliicli
like B gives Kalibum a reign of 900 years instead of 960.
A single scribal mistake is thus sufficient to explain the two most conspicu-
ous characteristics of B.. The explanation works only one way, however, from
A 'to B, and experiments wiU show that repeated and complicated errors must
be assumed if we want to account for the opposite development, from B to A.
Our evidence points accordingly to A as the better form of the text.
The conclusion that A is closer to the original than B is based upon the
inherent probability of the most simple solution. That principle is not, how-
ever, altogether without exceptions. It happens, although rarely, that events
do not follow the most probable course, and our argument is thus not abso-
lutely decisive. It is therefore fortunate that we possess confirmatory evi-
dence which settles the question beyond possibility of doubt.
In both of our versions occur the lines ar-wi-d-um duinu ma5-
d k - k 04 . There is here a slight irregularity because the Mashda mentioned
as father of Arwi^um is otherwise completely unknown. There are naturally
many cases in the list where the father of a king is mentioned, but the father
has then as a rule been king himself and appeared higher up in the list.®^ That
Mashda has not similarly appeared before therefore suggests that the list as
we have it is incomplete and that a king Mashda has been left out just before
the Arwi^um passage.
Examining our two versions we see that B, which deals with the reign of
Zuqaqip just before ArwPum, shows no trace whatsoever of a missing ruler
at this place. In version A, however, the case is different. Here Arwi^um is
preceded by the two rulers d - 1 a b and a-tab-ba, and it cannot but
strike us that the latter of these names, Atabba, is nothing but the genitive
case A t a b b - a (k) of the former, Atab. How does the list come to record
as different rulers two forms of the same name? A glance through the list
itself will give us the explanation, for we find numerous passages in whicli —
as with Atab and Atabba — ^the same name appears twice in close succession,
the second time in the genitive. Such passages are those in which a king is
In the 33 other cases in which we have tlie formula N. d u m u P. there is only one
where the father has not appeared earlier as ruler. This one case is highly exceptional and
explains itself. Itis[mes-ki]-^g-ga-[§e-erl dumu ‘^utu, “Mes-kiag-gasher, son
of Utu (the sun-god).’^ Obviously the author could not well enter the sun-god himself as
king of Uruk in his list.
Of no importance — ^and therefore not included in our statistics — is the fact that Pa has
after Ur“Ninurta(k) an extra line not found in WB: dumu [ ]; for we cannot
draw safe conclusions about the principles of the original from the latest parts of the list,
which are additions by later scribes.
22
The Sumebian King List
stated to be the son of his predecessor: “A reigned x years; B, son of A,
reigned y years.” -
If on the strength of this analogy we assume that the present text of A de-
rives from a slightly broken original through the succession
Originul >
- t a b
m u 600 1 - as
[N. d u m u] - 1 a b - b a
in u 840 I - as
Copy >
d- tab
in u 600 i-as
a-t ab-ba
mu 840 i-Es
'A
d - 1 a b
m u 600 i - as
ab"ba
mu 840 I - as
the repetition of Atab as Atabba will be satisfactorily explained.
This result is of considerable interest. We have just seen that the passage
ar-wi-d-um dumu mas-d&-ke4 suggested that a ruler^s name
was missing immediately before it. Now we find that another feature of the list,
the absurd reappearance of the name Atab in the genitive form, is explicable
on that very supposition only; and in both cases the same point in the text,
the line before Arwhum, is indicated. This cannot be coincidence, and we may
accordingly restore the original form of the passage as follows:
4 - 1 a b
m u 600 i - a 5
ma§-d^ dumu d-tab-ba
m u 840 i- as
ar-wi-ii-um dumu ma§-da-ke 4
m u 720 i-Efi.
We may now consider the question whether version A or version B has pre-
served the more nearly original text in the light of these new facts. In A we
have just found a number of indications grouped so that they form an organic
and logical whole and point to a single conclusion. In B these same indications
are scattered, do not form any pattern, may even be unrecognizable; the tell-
tale relationship of the names Atab and Atabba is blurred ; the names appear as
Aba, Atabba and are separated from the Arwi^um passage by two other rulers.
This difference between the two versions can mean only one thing: A has
preserved the original text. Here the traces left by the omission of the name
Mashda are still undisturbed and easy to read, while in B time has scattered
and partly obliterated them. To reverse the process and assume that B repre-
sents the original text is impossible. This would mean that the whole group of
indications in A would be due to coincidence. The existence of the Arwi^um
passage, which suggests that a ruler is missing, would be a coincidence. By
coincidence the name a - b a would have been changed so that it became
the nominative of the following Atabba and could convey the same suggestion,
Textual Peoblems
23
that a ruler was missing. Finally, coincidence would have caused a copyist
to move two names en bloc from their place in the list and insert them at the
one place where the suggestion which they conveyed in their new form and
that conveyed by the Arwi^um passage could be brought to bear on the same
line of the text. Such a series of extraordinary coincidences can saff'ly be
ruled out. We can therefore consider it proved that in this section A has pre-
served the original form of the text, at least as far as the arrangement of the
rulers, the names Atafa and Atabba, and related variants are concerned.
This result is of considerable importance for ascertaining the mutual rela-
tionships of our manuscripts. The version which we have called B is represent-
ed by no less than four sources: Pj, P3, Pg, and Sui. Some of the most promi-
nent characteristics of this version have proved to be due to mistakes in copy-
ing. Version A, on the other hand, represented by only a single source, WB,
is free of these errors. WB must accordingly have descended from the original
by another route than P2, P3, Ps, and Sui, a route which avoided the text in
which the errors were made. The possibility that WB belongs to the same
line of descent as the B texts but should be placed above the text in which
the errors were made is excluded by the fact that our manuscripts are
roughly contemporaneous and that one of the B texts seems to be even older
thanWB.«
We can therefore draw up the following elementary pedigree :
WB P 2 P 5 Pg So,
B represents here the copy or consecutive series of copies in which the errors
common to P2, P3, Ps, and Sui were first made. The brace is meant to indicate
that the sources placed under it all derive from the original through a common
ancestor but that the exact way in which they descend from that ancestor is
unknown. P2, P3, Ps, and Sui may thus have descended from B each in a direct
line, or one may have descended from another and that again from B, etc.
VABIANTS IN THE EBIQNS OP THE AGADE RTJLEES
To a division of our sources very similar to that indicated by the Atabba
variants points a group of variants in the reigns of the Agade kings. The fig-
P 2 , which dates from the 4th year of Enlil-bant (p. 6 , n. 6 ).
24
Thb'Sumbeian :King List,,
ures for single reigns and dynasty totals preserved in the various manuscripts
are as follows:
WB
ht
Pr
Pa
S ■■
Sui
Su3+4
Sharru(m)-kin
56,'^
55
1 ]
1 ]
1 ]
[ ]
[ ]
Rimush.
■■9 ■
15
[ 1
[ ]
t ]
[ ]
[ ]
Man-ishtusiiu
15
,7'
[ I
1 ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Narim-Stn
i ]
56
15]6
{ ]
[ ]
l ]
[ ]
Shar-kali-sharri
[ 1
25
24
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
, 25
ll]57
Igigi, Nanum, Imi,
and Eluiu
[ ]
[ ]
3
[ ]
3
[ ]
[ ]
Years 161
177 ■
Dudu
21
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
21
Kings '9'
rgi
Shu-Durul
15
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
15
Years 181
[ ]
[ ]
[1]97
197
Kings
11
[ ]
1 ]
[ ]
12
It will be noted that the totals given in P 3 , P 2 , and S correspond to the fig-
ures for the single reigns preserved in Li and S in such a way that these lists
can be restored with full confidences^ as
Li
Pi
P2
s
Sharru(m)-kfn
55
[55]
[55]
[55]
Rimush
15
[15]
[15]
[15]
Man-ishtushu
7
[7]
[7]
[7]
Naram-Sin
56
• [5]6
[56]
[56]
Shar-kali-sharri
25
24
[26]
[25]
[1]57
Igigi, Nanum, Imi, and
Elulu
[3]
3
[3]
3
Dudu
[21]
[21]
[21]
21
Shu-Durul
[15]
[15]
[15]
15
Years fl97]
[196]
{1]97
197
Kings
[11]
[11]
[11]
12
The high degree of certainty which the interplay of totals and single figures gives may
be illustrated by an example. S has preserved the reigns of the second part of the dynasty
and the total 197 years. Li has the reigns of the first part. Added to each other these single
reigns make exactly the total 197 years, and the single reigns missing in S can therefore be
restored from the figures in Li. It is obvious that even if we restored S with figures different
from those of Li the sum of these different figures would have to be the same as that of the
figures of Li, for when we insert the figures of Li the total is correct. Furthermore, any
differences between the individual figures which we restore in S and the figures of Li could
only have come about by scribal errors in S or Li or both, since a true rendering of the
■ Textttal Peobeems 25
The lists are very much ahke.' ;OnIy two points need comment: (1) the fig-
ure for the reign of Shar-kali-sharn, which is 25 in Li and must have been 25
in P 2 and S also, whereas it is 24 in' P3; and (2) the curious summary in S giv-
ing 12 kings, although we know only 11 kings of the dynasty. The first of
these points, the different figures for Shar-kali-sharrl, must be explained as a
coppst's mistake, but whether 24 became 25 or vice versa cannot be safely
determined.^2 second, it seems probable, as suggested by various
scholars, that a scribe counted the line after Shar-kali-sharri, a b a m
lugal abam nu lugal,asa king when he added up.
A second group of sources is formed by Sui and SU3+4. Siii preserves a total
for the dynasty of 161 years and W kings. This total, 161 years, is the sum
of the first nine reigns of the dynasty as we know them from Li and S, and
the broken figure S can be restored as (9). We can therefore conclude
that Sui had the same figures as Li and S but stopped its account of the Agade
dynasty with the ninth king, EMu. The text SU3+4 also stops its account of
the Agade dynasty here,^^ and the broken figure % for the number of kings,
in coL iii 14, can similarly be restored as B (9). Considering that Sui and
SU3+4 are roughly contemporaneous, that they come from the same place,
Susa in Elam, where copies of the Sumerian King List to use as originals can-
not have been abundant, and that both texts stop short in their account of
the Agade dynasty at exactly the same point, it is an obvious conclusion that
they derive from a single original, a text in which by some accident the final
section of the Agade dynasty had been destroyed. This conclusion becomes a
certainty when we compare other sections of the two lists, for elsewhere also
Sui and SU3+4 show the same omissions.
Only one more point needs comment. Sui and SU3+4 are not com-
pletely alike. Instead of the total 161 years given by Sui, SU3+4 has 177
original would obviously keep the texts identical. These scribal errors, however, would have
to be very peculiar; for, since the sum of the figures in Li and those restored in S must be
the same, we would have to assume that every time a scribal error changed one figure an-
other scribal error changed another figure and that by coincidence one error always hap-
pened to add exactly as many years as the other subtracted. Such an assumption is so un-
likely that we need not consider it. Thus the interplay of totals and single reigns assures a
high degree of safety for the restoration. In our table we have such assurance for all of S
and P 2 , for Pa down to Dudu, and for Li down to Igigi.
A similar problem is discussed on p. 19.
Ungnad in ZA XXXIV (1922) 14; Poebel iUd, p. 46; and Langdon, OECT II 18, n. 2.
My own former objections in Acta Orimtalia V (1927) 304, based on the fact that we know
of no analogous instance, are not serious.
See the text as restored above (p. 10, n, 24).
26
The StiMEEiAK Kin0 List
years. Since both texts derive from the same original, it should natur-
ally be possible to give a reasonable explanation of this difference. This
is indeed the cavSe. If the version from which the ancestor of Sui and
Su3-f.4 derived had for the reign of Dudu a damaged figure , but other-
wise looked like Li and S, the copyist would read 1 instead of 21 and get 177
years as total for the dynasty. When later on the text — with the section on
Dudu and Shii-Durul hopelessly damaged — served as original for Sui and 803+4?
the scribe who wrote SU3+4 simply took over the total 177 years which he found
in the original, whereas the scribe of Sui checked the figures and, finding a
discrepancy, made a new total by adding up the single reigns. This gave him
161 years.
W'e have thus seen that the somewhat singular data of both Sui and SU3+4
become understandable if we assume that these versions in the section which
they preserve had the same figures as Li and S and derive from a common origi-
nal damaged at the end of the dynasty. We can therefore group them to-
gether with Li, P2, P3, and S. All six versions represent the same form of the
text.
The reconstructed original form of these six versions, based on all the factors
just discussed, is given below. Alongside it we have placed the totally differ-
ent text presented by the last of our versions, WB.
The Six Versions
WB
Sharru(m)-kln
55
56
Bimush
15
9
Man-ishtushu
■' 1
15
Naram-Sin
56
[ ]
Shar-kali-sharri
25 or 24 (P 3 )
[ ]
Igigi, Nanum,
Imi, andElulu
3
[ ]
Dudu
21
21
Shu-Durul
15
15
197 or 196 (P 3 ) 181
As will be seen, only the figures for the last two rulers correspond in the two
lists; the reigns of the first three rulers and the totals disagree; it is not even
possible to restore the three missing reigns in WB from the other sources, as
disagreement with its total would result.
The fact that these two forms of the text dissent so strongly naturally raises
the question of which is the closer to the original. Fortunately the origin of
one of the variants concerned can be elucidated with sufficient certainty to
Textual' Problems
27
provide the answer. In the form ■of the text represented by the six Bourcc\s—
for the sake of convenience .we may call this form Rimiish is stated to
have reigned 15 years. In, WB, however, the reign of Rimnsh is given as only
9 years, and it is his. successor Man-ishtuslm who reigned 15 years. To suggest
that a scribal mistake changed the 15 years of B to the 9 of WB seems out of
the question. These figures, (15) and ^ (9), are too different to be mis-
read for each other. Looking at the full form of the text as given in WB we
note, however, that the phrase rtmu§ dumu garru-ktn occurs twice
in close succession, so that a scribe copying such a text may easily have
jumped from the first line down to the exactly similar passage in lines 4-5:
WB
r i-mu-uS dumu §ar-r u-ki-in
inu 9 i-as
ma-ni-is-ti-is-su
§es-gal ri-mu-u§
dumu §ar-ru“ki-in
mu 15 i - as
Instead of r 1 m u § dumu §arru-ktn mu 9 i - as the scribe would thus
get rimus dumu sarru-klnmulSi-ag; that is, a scribal mistake
which may easily happen leads from the data of WB to the data of B. Since
a development from the form presented by WB to that presented by B is
thus easily explainable, whereas no way leads from the 15 years of B to the 9
of WB, we may conclude that WB has preserved the original text at this
point.^^
This result means that six of our versions — Li, P 2 , P 3 , S, Sui, and SU 3 + 4 —
all contain the same copyist^s error, and it is therefore probable that they
have all descended from the original through a single copy, that in w^hich this
error was made. Within the group Sui and SU 3+.4 seem to be especially closely
related. They derive from a version broken at the end of the Agade dynasty,
a version through which none of the others has passed. WB, finally, stands
alone. It has preserved a better text than the others and derives from the
original without passing through the version in which the Rtmush mistake
was made. For the same reason as in the Atabba variant (p. 23) we cannot
place WB in the same direct line of descent as the other texts and higher than
This explanation purports to elucidate only the variant Rimush 15 in B, How B got
the further error Man-ishtushu 7 we leave an open question at present.
Copy
rl-mu-u§ dumu (iar-ru-ki-in
r l-m u-u§
dumu) §ar-ru-ki-in
mu 15 i-ag
28
The Sumeeian Kin0 List
the erroneous copy. Instead we must assume that it represents a different
branch of the tradition. We can therefore draw up the following pedigree:^®
Here B represents the copy in which the Rimush mistake was made, Su the
broken text from which Sui and SU 3+4 were copied. The significance of the
braces has been explained abo¥e,
VARIANTS IN THE POBMULAS
The occurrence of the Atabba variants could be observed in five of our
manuscripts. For the variants in the reigns of the Agade rulers we could con-
sult seven. A still greater number of manuscripts can be compared through
observation of the formulas which they use. The King List is given to cliches
and uses set formulas whenever possible. Only three such formulas, however,
recur so frequently through the text that they are of real value for our purpose.
These are (1) the formula for change of dynasty, (2) the formula for dynasty
total, and (3) the formula for introducing single rulers. The forms which
they take in our various manuscripts are as follows:
In Acta Orimtalia V (1927), 302-9, 1 some years ago proposed a different solution to
account for the variants in the Agade dynasty, in which I assumed that the total 12 kings
in 197 years of S as against 11 kings in 181 years of WB was due to the fact that S had listed
a usurper with a reign of 16 years between Narto-Stn and Shar-kali-sharrI, whereas WB left
this usurper out. At the time when that article was written I did not have access to PBS
XIII and thus did not know that the two fragments which make up Li actually join, forming
part of a single tablet. It therefore seemed possible to consider these fragments parts of
different versions and to put one of them, the one I called La, aside as totally corrupt. I thus
missed the significance of the fact that both of the two versions which preserved the section
where my usurper should be placed showed no trace of him, and I similarly overlooked the
highly suggestive correspondence between the single figures of these fragments and the total
197 years in S which indicates that S should be restored from them. Finally, I did not give
due attention to the place of the < -wedge in the damaged figure for the reign before Shar-
kali-sharri in P3. This wedge is placed so high that the traces can only be restored as ( 56 ) ,
the figure wMch Li gives as the length of Narto-Sfn's reign, not as ^ (16) for the reign of
my usurper. Thus P 3 also has Shar-kali-sharrI as the immediate successor of Narto-Sln.
Since P 3 with its total of 157 years after Shar-kali-sharil should have listed the postulated
usurper, the theory must be abandoned.
This formula may, within the single texts, be elaborated in various ways. Its basic
constituents, with which we are here solely concerned, are ( 1 ) name of ruler -f- ( 2 ) length of
reign + (3) verb: reigned.” As elaborations — to which we do not pay attention — may
be mentioned insertion after the ruler^s name of (a) a patronymic: d u m u P.; (h) some
Textual Peoblems
29
' WB« ■
' 1. Formula for change, of dynasty:. k u I b a « a n - s I g n a m - hi g a ! ^
bi ba-tiim. . Occurrences: ii 45-46: ki§i^**«fciikul ba-an-sig
nam-lugal-bi .4-aii-na-ld 'ba-tAm; iii 37-38: u n u ««t u ku 1
ba-an-sig iiam-lugai-bi b a- 1 d m ; iv 17-19: a-wa-an^^
®i-^[tukur ba-a]n-sig nam»lugai-bi [ba- tiim]; iv 36-38:
ki§i^i«»tukul ba-an-sig nam-iugal-bi ^a-ma-zi^^-gd ba-tdin;
iv 43-44 : b^-iBa-aP* «%ukul ba-an-sig nam-lugal-bi unug^^-g^
ba-tdm; V 21-22: [adaba^»] «i«tukul ba-an-sig [nam-lugal-b]i
ma-eri^"^-g^ ba-tdin ; v 33-35: [ma-erF ukul] ba-an-sIg
[nam-lugal]-bi [kigiJ=*-gd] ba-tdm; v 42-43: kigi^i«i«tukul ba-an-
sig nam-lugal-bi U4-kus'd^K9^ ba-tum ; vi 6-8: U 4 -kugu^' u ku I
[ba-an-sig nam]-lugal-bi kigi^*-g§ ba-tdm; vi 22-23: kiiF
«‘“tukul ba-an-sig nam-lugal-bi unug^*-gg b a-tdm ; vi 28-30:
unug^'s'^tukul ba-an-sig nam-lugal-bi a-ga-de^*-gd ba-tum;
vii 13-14: a- ga- d uk u I ba-an-sig n arn-lugal-bi unug^*-§d
ba-tdrn ; vii 24-26: u n u «'«tukul ba-an-sig nam-lugal-bi ki-
su-lu-iib4(!) gu-tu-um(!) b a-tdm viii 1-2: ki-su-lu-ubi-gar
epithet, such as sipa(d) , “the shepherd^’; (c) information concerning the ruler's ori-
gin, the name of his city, or the character or occupation of his father (this information is
given in the form x - n i y , “his x [^city,' ‘father,' etc.] was y [‘Kma(ra),' ‘a lilM-dmioTiy
etc.])"; (d) information concerning the ruler’s exploits. This last type of information is
given in the form of a relative sentence introduced by 1 li . The name of the ruler often
takes the subject element - e , but as the use of this element is generally very irregular
within the sources we are not considering its occurrence or nonoccurrence distinctive.
N.- e X mu i - as and N. x mu i - as are thus not considered separate varieties of the
formula.
Related to the formula for introducing single rulers is the formula for introducing dy-
nasties: A^^-a N. lugai- am mu X (or: x mu) i-as (or: in-as), “In AN. became
king and reigned x years."
WB contains two sets of formulas, one used in the section dealing with the antedilu-
vian rulers and one used in the postdiluvian section. As the various problems connected
with the antediluvian section are dealt with in detail further on (pp. 55-68), we shall here
limit ourselves to the formulas in the postdiluvian part. We quote from Langdon's auto-
graph copy (DECT II, Pis. I-IV) as corrected by collation with photographs of the origi-
nal (see pp. 76 E-). In many cases Langdon's transliteration (op. ciL pp. 8-21) already has
the correct readings.
The reasons which make this reading preferable to m a - r are stated by Thureau-
Dangin in RA XXXI (1934) 83 f.
The scribe omitted -sh after Akshak here where it belongs and wrote it after Ak-
shak in the following line where it is incorrect. He must twice have looked at the wrong line
of his original when he copied tliis passage.
The scribe forgot gar after ki-su-lu-ubi- here and in the following line but
remembered it in viii L He also omits ^ after gu-tu-um in this line, although
he correctly writes g u - 1 u - u in the next line. This accumulation of omissions
might suggest that the original of WB was slightly damaged at this place.
30
The Sumerian King List
g[u-tu-iiin^'] (I)"^ nam-lugal“bi unug^'-ie [ba-tiim]; viii 7-8:
11 ri u iikiii ba-an-sig nam-lugai-bi ur - s e] b a - 1 u m ;
viii 21 - 22 : ur - m a (!)'^ u k u 1 ba-an-sig nam-lugal-bi i-si-
in^“» 8 e ba-tiiin.
2 . Formula for dynasty total: x 1 u g a 1 in u - b i y f b - as . If the dynasty
consists of one king only, the verb changes from collective to singular : i - as . Occur-
rences: ii 42-44: 23lugal mu-bi 24,510 itu 3 U 4 3 U 4 | ib-as; iii 35-36:
12 lugal mu-b i 2,310 Ib-as ; iv 15-16: 3 [lu gal] mu-b i 361[+ x ib-asj;
iv 34-35: 8 lugal mu-bi 3,195 f [b-as] ; iv 41-42: 1 lugal mu-bi6§u-§i
I b - V 13-14: [x] lugal mu-bi [y] 1 b - as; v 19-20: [x] 1 u g a 1 [mu-bi
y 4-]20 ib-as;'^ V 31-32: [x +]5 lugal [mu-bi] 136 i (!)- as;^^ v 40-41: 1
lugal mu-bi 100 i-a5;vi 20-21: 7 lugal mu-bi 491 ib-as; vi 26-27: llugal
m u (i)*’® 25 i - as ; vii 11-12: 11 1 u g a 1 m u - b i 181 i b - as ; vii 22-23: 5 1 u g a 1
m u - b i 30 1 b -as ; vii 50-51 : [x +] H 1 u g a 1 [mu-bi y] U4 40 i b - as ; viii 5-6:
1 [lugal] mu-bi 7 su-si 6 <^U4M* * Las] ; viii 19-20: 4 lugal mu-bi 108
1 b - as ; viii 44-45: 13 lugal mu-bi 203 f b - as .
3 . Formula for introducing single rulers: N.^^mu x i-as. Occurrences: i 46-
The passage is broken, but the space available does not allow us to restore the full
phrase g [u - 1 u - u 8‘^t u k u 1 b a - a n - s i g] . The scribe seems therefore to have
jumped a line, ^^^t ukul ba-an-sig. If this is correct, it suggests that WB’s origi-
nal was written with lines of only half the length of WB’s, i.e., with the length of line usual
in the other manuscripts.
The form u r - m a is hardly intended as a locative, for the text does not as a rule
express locative. More likely it is a mere slip due to the fact that the scribe was more con-
versant with the genitive form of the name, as this form naturally occurred more fre-
quently than the nominative.
Remnant of an earlier form of the text in which this d3masty numbered more than
one ruler (cf. pp. 99, n. 174, and 102, n. 186).
1 b - as would have been correct.
^ The omission of - b i here is probably due to influence from 1. 25, mu 25 i - as .
The subject element is used sporadically when the name is followed by a patronymic, e.g.
ba-li-ih dumu e-ta-na-ke^, as-k^ dumu en-me-en-b4ra-ge-si-
k 64 , or by other epithets, e.g. i 1 g a m e s (‘^giS-bil-ga-mbs) ab-ba-ni 111-14
en kui-ab-ba-ke 4. The subject element may even be found before epithets with
-4m where it is incorrect fsee Poebel, GSG § 152) : ki§i^^ piizur-'^stn dumu ku-
‘^ba-ba6-ke4 lugal-4m. Often, however, it is omitted, e.g. bar-sal-nun-na
dumu en-me-nun-na, ur-^^nun-gal dumu i 1 g a m e s (‘^ giS-bil-ga-mes) ;
and it is never used after a name which stands alone without epithet or patronymic, in other
words where there is not an obvious genitive relationship (cf. e.g. writings such as u r -
t u [vii 21], although the name contains a genitive, with ^§ui-gi dumu^ur-
%ammu-ke 4 [viii 11], where the genitive is ^‘obvious”). This peculiar use of the sub-
ject - e belongs to a late stage of Sumerian at which the subject element had virtually
gone out of use. It occurs as a “fossil"' only, namely in the sign - k 64 , which originally
was used after subjects containing a genitive (N. - (a) k - e) but in this late period had
come to be considered a mere genitive indication (cf. Poebel, GSG §§ 373 ff., where the
rules governing the genitive in late periods are set forth in detail).
Textual Phoblbms
31
47: gul-la •‘nidaba-an-na-fda' sikil® mu 960 i-as ; ii 7-S: ki-lf-
bu-um mu 960 i-a6;ii9; qa,-lu-mu mu 840 i - as ; poauw.
1 . Formula for change of dynasty: b a - tg u 1] n a m - 1 u g a I - b i B'‘*- 5 &
b a - 1 ii m , Occurrences: ii 1-3: [k i 5 P* b a - g u 1] n a m - 1 u g a [1 - b ij 6-au-
na-5e ba-ti.1.[m] ; iii 1-2: [unug’^* ba-gul nam-lugal-bi] un'puSo
ba-tiim]; iii 17-19: urP* ba^^-fgul] nam-lugal-[bi] a- wa-an 0)'^"
b a-t lini . , , ,
2. Formula for dynasty total: x lugal mu-bi y mu fb-a-i. Occurrence:
iii 14-16: 4 lug[al] mu-bi 171 [mu] f[b-aj. Compare the form of the final
totals: xi 1-4: su-NiGiN^Sr [lugal] mu-bi lS[000+x+]0 m u [y itu z ujib-
[aj ; xi 7-9: ^su-nigin^ 22 lug [a 1] mu-bi 2,61[0+x mu] 6 itu 13[+x] lu ib-
taslixi 12-14: su-nigin 13M u g a 1 mu-bi 396 mu f b-ar> ; xi 17-19: su[-kigi]x
3 lugal mu-bi 356 mu 1 b-ag ; xi 22-23: [su]-nigin 1 lugal mu-bi 7 rou
[I -as] ; xii 1-3: [su-nigin x] lugal [mu-bi y+]137 [mu] fb-ag; xii 6-8: stj-
fNiGiN^ 21 1 u g a 1 mu-bi 125 m u 40 U4 i b - as ; xii 12-14 : [stj-nigin] 1 1 i u g a 1
[m u - b] i 159 m u f b - as .
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: x m u i-ag. Occurrences: i 7-8:
[qy-iii-mu-um-e [900] mu i-as; i 9-10: [z] u -qa-qu-ip-e mu
I -as ; passim.
P3
1. Formula for change of dynasty: not preserved.
2. Formula for dynasty total: x [lugal] mu-bi y [ ] i [b (?) - as] . Oc-
currence: ii 7-9: 23 [1 u g a 1] in u - b i 18,000[4- x] i t u 3 114 3 i [b - as] .
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: x mu i-as. Occurrences: i 1-2:
Probably not a proper name; see p. 77, n, 40.
Poebel reads this sign as m a in PBS IV 1, p. 76, and translates “the kingdom of
Ur passed to Awan” (u r i rn - a (k) n a m - 1 u g a i - b i etc.) ; but his copy shows a clear
b a I On the restoration b a - [g u 1] see p. 46, n. 93.
The scribe omitted s ^ .
®^The subject element -e is used regularly (1) when the name stands alone: [q^i]-
lu-mu-um-e, [z]u-q4-qi4-ip-e, en-me-nun-na-ke4 (the only excep-
tions are ^4^ - 1 a b - b a and - b aO ; (2) when the name is followed by a patronymic
only: ar-wi dumu ma§-da-ke4, wa-li-ilj dumu e-ta-na-ke4, me-
htm-kisi^* dumu en-me-nun-na-ke 4 , bar-sal-n u n - n a dumu en-me-
nun-na-ke4, ^sumug^ S'^-’^mug'* dumu bar-sal-nun-na-ke4, [ti-iz]-
d F d u m u b a r - s a i - n u n - n a - k 64 . If the name is followed by other epithets
or by a note the scribe wavers. He omits - e with a simple epithet: i u g a I - b a n - d a
8 i p a , where s i p a - d d would have been correct. When the name is followed by an
epithet ending with - ^ m he writes mes-ki-in-ga-§e-er dumu "^utu en-i\m
lugal-am, which is correct {OSG §152), but he also writes incorrectly en-me-
er-ril-kdr[diimu]mes-ki-in-ga-§e-er-ke 4 lugal unu*^‘-ga Idunu^^
-ga mu-un-da-dh-a lugal-^m.
Except for ‘■ar'^-bu-um u m u^ m a § -bn- d 64^ the subject element does
not appear in any of the names preserved.
32
The SuMEEiAN/.Kma List
[k ^ - 1 i - b u] - u m [x m] n I - as ; i 3-4: [4] - b a fx] m u i ; i 5-6: - 1 a b -
ba 720[+x]mu i“a 5 ;pamm.
'
1. Formula for change of dynasty: u [k u 1 b a - s i g] n a m - 1 u g a 1 -
[b i] S 5 b a - 1 d m] . Occurrence: i 2-5: u n u u [k u 1 b a - s I g] n a m -
liigal-[bi| ki“Su-lu-iib-[gar] gu-ti-umWi-[§^ ba-tiim] .
2. Formula for dynasty total: [x lugal] mu-bi y [ ]. Occurrence: i 1: [x
1 u gal] m u - b i 24[+ y ],
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: x m u I - [as] . Occurrence: i 6-7;
im-^ta’‘“[a] 3 mu i-Ias].
Ps
1 . Formula for change of dynasty : bala-bi ba-an-kiir nam - lugal-
bi ba-an-[tilm]. Occurrence: iv 7: ^u’rf^'^ bala-bi ba-an-
kiir nam-lugal-bi i-si-in^*-Sd ba-an- [tdm] .
2. Formula for dynasty total: x lugal-e-ne y in-ak-eS. Occur-
rences : iv6: 5 lugai-e-n e(!)®^ 117 i n - a k - e § ; iv 24: [x 1 u g a 1 - e] - ^n
[m] u 225 i t u 6 i n - k^ - [e §] .
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: N.®® mu x in -as. Occurrences: i 9:
qi\-iu-mu-um [mu x in - as] ; i 10: z u - q d - k i - i p [mu x i n - as] ; i 21 :
6P-ta-sa-du-um mu [x in-a5];ivl3: [ur-%in]-urta mu 28 in-^as^;
passim.
Pe
1. Formula for change of dynasty: not preserved.
2. Formula for dynasty total: [x lug]al [m]u-bi y ib-as. Occurrence:
compare the final total in ii 1-3: [stj-nigin x 1 u g] a 1 [m] u - b i 125 i b - as .
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: N. x mu i-as. Occurrences: i 2-5:
[r - ] u [r - ] d u m u n u - m u - [ ] 6 m u i - [as] ; i 6-7 : su-mu-a-bu-
u[m] itu 8 i-asj'iS-O: [i-k]u-un-pi-i§tar [x mu] T-as.
The fragment has not preserved a single complete name, so we do not know whether
it used the subject element or not.
In iv 6 the scribe omits m u . This omission, however, is obviously due to negli-
gence in copying, for in iv 24, where the formula occurs again, traces of m u are pre-
served.
The subject element is in this text used differently in the different sections. In col. i
the subject element - e is used when the name is followed by a patronymic: a r - w i - d
duinu mas-da-ke4, ba-fii-ib^ dumu e - ^t -n a-ke* , m e -1 d, m - ^k i s
dumu e[n]-me“nun-^na^-ke4, sxmuG s^-mug dumu bar-sal-nun'-
na-ke 4 ,^ti’-iz-kdr dumu sttmug s^-mug-ke 4 . When the name stands alone
- e is not used. The only exception is [i] 1 - k u - u m - e . Similarly in iv 1-14 - e is used
when the name is followed by a patronymic: §ul-gi dumu ur-^nammu“ke 4
etc., but not when the name stands alone. It makes no difference whether the name is
followed by an epithet with - ^ m or not, for we find uri*=^-ma ur-‘*nammu-ke 4
lugal-d,m (iv 1) but also [l]-si-inW-n a is-bi-^^lr-ra iugal-^m (iv 8).
From 1. 15 on, however, all the names seem to be without - e , even when they are fol-
lowed by patronymics. We must here no doubt recognize a different hand; the scribe who
added the last section of the list did not bother with this grammatical feature (cf. p. 135).
TeXTVAJj PeoBIiEMS
33
Li
, , 1. Formula : for change of dynasty: u k u I b a - s I g n a m - 1 u g a I - b !
.ba.-ttim . Occurrences:;, iil 8: [url^^J ba-sig "[ri am, «
i ii g a 1 - ,b I a w a - a , b a - 1 4 m]' ; iv 5-7: k i § u k ii 1 b a - s 1 g
nam'-Iugal-bi ba-ma-zF--'§^ ba-tdm;vl: |ur «‘«tukul ba-sig
nam-lugal-bi] adaba^^-^^^"* [bla-tiim ; v 8-10: adaba^*
ba-^sig^;n,am'-lugai-b[i] ma-erpi-§|j ba-tiim; vi 2-»4: lu-kus#*
^*%ukul ba-sig nam-lugai-bi ki§i^*-s5 ba-tdm ; k 4-8: ki - s u -
lu-db-gar g u - t i - u u k u i ba-sig [n a rn - i] u g a 1 - b i
[u n u g^'- sA] fba -t d mk
2. Formula for dynasty total : x I u g a 1 m u - b i y 1 b - as Occurrences : Hi
6-7: [x] lugai [mu-bi y+]51 fb-as; iv 2-4: 4[+x] lugai mu-bi 3,792 fb-
as; V 6-7: 1 lugal mu-bi 90 ffb^-[a5] ; vx 1: [x lugai] mu-bi 99 Hb-as’;
ix 2-3: 21 lugai mu-bi 124 U4 40 !
3* Formula for introducing single rulers: x m u i - Eg . Occurrences: Hi 2- 3:
[e] - 0 u’’ - 1 u [x] mu i - ag ; iii 4-5: [b a - 1 u ] - 1 u [x] m u i - as ; pmsim. Two neigh-
boring passages, viii 4-7 and 20-21, have a different formula: N. x rn u i n - as
Occurrences: viii 4-5: in-gii-idS 7 mu in-as (1. 3 still has i-as) ; viii 6-7:
z4r-ar-la-ga-ba 6 mu in - as (L 9 has I - as again) ; viii 20-21 : [ ] - a n -
gab [x mu] in-as.
L2
1. Formula for change of dynasty: not preserved.
2. Formula for dynasty total: not preserved.
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: N.®^ x mu i - as . Occurrences: i 1-2:
t e - [ x+1600 m [u i - as] ; i 3-4: p4-la-ki-na-^ti-i nH 900 mu i - as ; 1
5-6: na-an-gis-li-i§-ma[xlfmu i-ask
'S
L Formula for change of dynasty: - a(k) bala-bi ba-kiir nam-
lugal-bi ba-tdm. Occurrences: obv. 8: lu-kusu^'-a bala-bi
ba-kdr nam-iugai-bi kisi^^-§^ ba-tum; obv. 19: kisi^' bala-
bi ba-k[ilr n a]m-lu gal-bi unug^'-§d ba-t u m ; obv. 22: uxiu^'-ga
bala-bi ba-ktir [nam-luga]l-bi a-ga-de^^'-^e ba-tffra; rev. 9-
10: a-ga-de^^ bala-bi ba-kdr nam-liigai-bi unug’^*-§e ba-
t dm ; rev. 17-18: unu^^-ga bala-bi ba-kur nam-lugal-bi ki-
su-iu-iib-gar ^gu-ti^-u m^^ - ba-tdm.
2. Formula for dynasty total: x lugai-e-ne mu-bi y in-ak-es.
If the dynasty consists of one king only the words lugal-e-ne and i n - a k - e
This text seems to keep the collective i b - as even when the dynasty has only one
ruler.
The subject element is not used. Only two names are exceptions: pHzur-'^sin
dumu kii-‘^ba-ba6-ke4 iugal-^m and ur-<*za"ba4-ba4 dumu pds&ur-
i n - k e4 .
On the significance of this change see pp. 54 f .
The subject element is not used in the two names preserved.
34
The Sumerian King List
change to singular I u g a 1 and i n - as . Occurrences: obv. 7: Oiugal-e-ne
mu-bi 99 ia-ak-es; obv. 18: 8 1 u g a 1 - e » [n e] m u - b i 586 i n - a k - e s ;
obv. 21: i in gal mu- bi 25 in -as ; rev, 8: 12 lugal-e-ne mu-bi 197
i n-ak-es ; rev. 16: 5 lugal-e-ne mu-bi 26 in-ak-e§.
3, Formula for introducing single rulers : N x m u i ii - as . Occurrences : obv.
2: un-da-lu-lu 12 mu in-Ss ; obv, 3: ur-ur 6 mu in-as ; obv. 4:
p u z u r - % i r a Ij 20 m u i n - as ; passim.
Sui
1. Formula for change of dynasty : u k u 1 b a - s i g n a m - 1 u g a 1 - b i
- § e b a - td m . Occurrences: v 1: [. , . , sHukul ba-sig nam-iu gal-
bi U 4 “ku§ti^^-s^ ba]-tiim; V 18-20: U 4 -ku§d^^ f^^^ukul ba-slg
n a m-lug[al]-bi ma-eri ba- tdm ; vi 10-12: kiSi^V«^®tukul b a-
sig nain-lugal-bi unug^^-§e ba-tiim ; vi 19-21: u n u «pt u k u 1
ba-sig] n a m - 1 ii g a 1 - [b i] a - g a - d ^ b a - 1 ii m] ; vii 5-7 : a -
g a - d »'»t ukul ba-sig nam - 0 u g a T - b i u n u g^' - s ^ b a - 1 li m ;
viii 7-9: u r 8‘®[t u k u 1 b a - s i g] n a m - 1 u g a 1 - [b i] i - s i - i n^' - § ^ [b a -
t dm] .
2. Formula for dynasty total: x 1 u g a 1 m u - b i y m u i - as (?) .^^ Occurrences :
iv 14: [x] lugal [mu-bi y mu i-asC?)] ; v 16-17: 6 lugal mu-bi 110[+x+]
3 mu i-asC?) ; vi S-9: 7 lugal mu-bi 485 mu i-asC?) ; vi 17-18: 1 lugal
m u - b i 25 m u 9 - as (?)^ ; vii 3-4: [x-|-]3 lu g al m u - b i 161 m u i - as (?) ; viii
5-6: 2[+x i u g a 1] ^mu’-bi 120[-l-y mu i- as (?)] .
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: x mu i-a 5 (?). Occurrences:
vi 2-3: i§-me-*^§amas 11 mu i-as (?) ; vi 4-5: Su-i-H-§ul5mui-a5(?) ;
vi 6-7: sl-mu-dar 7 mu i-as (?) ; pusstm.
SU2
L Formula for change of dynasty: ba-gul nam-lugal-bi 6
ba-tdm. Occurrences: ii 11-13: kiSi^V^^-'S^i nam-lugal-bi 4-an-
n ^ b a - 1 d m ; iii 9-11 : u n u g^^ b a - g [u 1] n a m - 1 u g a 1 - [b i] urf[^^-
§ ^ b a- tdra] .
2, Formula for dynasty total: x lugal mu-bi y mu i-as. Occurrences:
ii 7-10: 23 1ugalmu-bi 20,940 m u 30 i t u 3 U 4 2-| i - as ; iii 6-8: 12 1 u g a 1
mu-bi 3,588 mu i - as .
The subject element is used regularly when the name is followed by a patronymic,
otherwise not.
According to Scheil in RA XXXI (1934) 149 the text uses na throughout instead of
as. This spelling would be surprising even for a text written in Susa, and the present writer
is inclined to believe that the sign which Scheil reads as na is in reality a careless form of
AX peculiar to the scribe who wrote Sui. The two signs are not very different: ^ (ak;
MDP XXII, No. 42:9) and (na). It is unfortunate that Sui has not preserved the
line concerning Aka, so that we cotdd see how the scribe wrote an indisputable ak.
^2 The subject element is not used with names which stand alone and occurs only occa-
sionally where the name is followed by a patronymic: [ar]-wi-um [dumu mas]-
d^-ke4, [ba-l]i-ih dumu e-[t]^-na-ke4, but §u-^sin dumu i-su-il,
ur-«*»gigir dumu ur-nifl:in»iugal-me-ldm dumu ur - i g i r .
Textuai. Pboblems
35
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: N.” x mu 1 -as. Occurrences: ii 2-3:
en-me-bdra-ga-e-si 900 mu l-as; ii 4-6: as-k:\ 625 mu i-a,;
iii 2-3: t i - [ ] 75 m u i - [as] . The last reign preserved on the fragrneuit has a dif-
ferent formula N. m u x t - as . Oecurrence: iii 4-5 : i u g a 1 - [ ] m u 7 1 - as .
Sut+F*:
1. Formula for change of dynasty: Ai"* u k u 1 b a - s i g n a m - 1 u g a 1 -
bi ba-tdm. Occurrences: ii 1-3: [ ]*'' *‘*Itukul ba-sig nam|-
lugal-[b]i [kiSiw].S5 ba-tdm; u 23-25: [ki§i‘=***‘tukul] ba-slg
[nam-lugal]-bi [unugi^^-iS ba]-tdm; ii 32-34: [unug''‘«**tukui ba]-
sig [nam-lugal-b]i [a-ga-dS’'‘-§5 ba-tii]m; iii 17-20: a-ga-de*^^
«“tukul ba-sig nam-lugal-bi unugi^'-S^ ba-tdm ; iii 34-37: unug^‘
s‘»tukul ba-slg [a]am-lugal-bi [nija-da gu-tu-umi^i-S^ ba-
tiim; iv 3-6: ma-da g u - [t h- u m*'*] '‘“tukul ba-[sig] nam-Iugal-
[bi] unug'^*-S5 [ba-tiim]; iv 14-16: unug[‘=‘*»tukul ba-sig] nam-
[lugal-bi] urip'-^S ba-tdm]; iv 36-38: urf-ma'‘*«“tukul ba-slg
. ■ . , ■ ' ' ' '
2. Formula for dynasty total: xlugal mu-bi y mu i-ag. Occurrences:
ii 20-22: [x lugjal [mu-bi y] mu PJ-ag; ii 30-'31: [x liig]al [mu-bi y muj
i - as ; iii 14-16: ‘^3^[+x lugal] mu-bi 177 mu I - as ; iii 31-33 : 3 lugal mu-
bi 57 mu i- as ; iv 33-35: 5 lugal mu-bi 123 mu i-as.
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: x mu i-ag* Occurrences: ii 5-9:
k u - ^b a - b ae . . . . 100 m u i - as ; iii 1-2: [m a - a n] - i § - 1 i - [s u x] mu i - as ;
iii 3-5: § a r - a 1 i^ - § a r - r i . . . . 25 mu i - as ; iv 1-2: 1 u g a 1 - [ ] 25 m ii
P-as]; iv 18-20: ur-'^pi ammu] . . . . 18 mu i-M; iv 21-23: 4§ul-g[il
* . . . 48 m u i - ^asM pctssim, A single section, iii 22-30, Las another formula:^* N,
mu X i - as . Occurrences: iii 22-24: u r - n i g I n . . . . in u 15 i - as ; iii 25-27 :
u r - i g i r . . . . m u 7 i - ag ; iii 28-30: u r - <^u t u . . . . m u 25 1 - as *
K
1. Formula for change of dynasty: absent.
2. Formula for dynasty total: x lugal-e-ne balaA^^mu y in-ag-me-
e § . Occurrences : rev. il3: 1[1 lugal-e-ne b ala mu x in- as -
me-es];ii8: 3 lugal-e-ne baia kur a-ab-ba mu 23 in- as- me- eS ;
ii 12; [3 1 u g a 1 - e - n e] b a 1 a b 1 1 - “"b a - z i m u 20 i t u 3 i [n] - - m e - e § .
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: N.^®mu x in- as. Occurrences: obv.
The subject element is not used in the names preserved.
Of. the similar cases presented by Li, which changes from i - as to i n - as , and SU 3 + 4 ,
which changes from x m u to m u x ; see pp. 54 f. for Ml discussion.
For the line numbering see p. 10, n, 24.
The text seems to have s u b n § e** [ ] rn u - u n (?) [ ], which may l>e restoKjd
as s u b u s e’ - [e n - g i - r a] m u - n"* - [s i r] , ^^The foundation of Sumer was torn
out/’
The subject element is not used.
Cf. the similar cases presented by Sus, which also changes from x m u to m u x,
and by Li, which changes from l-agtoin-asjsee pp. 54 f. for full discussion.
The subject element is not used.
36
The Shmeeian: King List
i 1: [N. mu x] in-aslii 2: “b al . [ieu x iE-as] ; ii 3: “en-men-
nun-na[mu x iu-aal ; rev. ii 5: . . . . i tu 3 in-as ;
ii 7: ®^%a§-iu-u-iiadin-abi , . . *mu S.in-as ; pamm'
■■ o' ■'
1. Formula for change of dynasty: not preserved,
2. Formula for dynasty total: not preserved.
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: N.’’^ x mu I- as. Occurrences: vii 3:
[in-ki-§us 6 m]u l-as; vii 4: [sa (?)-ar-ia-gab 6] mu i-ats]; vii 5:
[§ u 1« m e - e] 6 m [u I - h] ; vii 6: [e - 1 u - 1 u •* m e - e §] 7 m [u i - as] ; vii 7: i -
ni-ma-ba-ki-elS 5 [mu l-as] ; vii 8: [i*-ge4-e§-a"Ul§ ^6^ [mu i-as] .
J
L Formula for change of dynasty: ^^'^t u k u 1 b a - s i g n a m - i u g a 1 -
bi ba-tdm. Occurrences: obv. 1-4: [k i-su-1 u-db- gar] gu - ti-
ll u k u 1 ba-sig [nam]-lugal-bi [unugp*-§^ ba-tdm; rev.
b-8: [u] r 2'®t u k u 1 ba-sig [n]am-lugal-bi [i]-si-in^^-s^ ba-tiim.
2. Formula for dynasty total: 1 lugal mu-bi x l-as.®® Occurrences: obv*
7-8: 1 1 u g a 1 [m u - b i 7] i t u 6 U4 15 i - ^as’ ; rev, 4-5: 5 1 u [g a i] [m] u - b i [109
fb-as}.®®
3. Formula for introducing single rulers: N.®^mu x [i-as]. Occurrence: obv.
5-6: t u “ b ^ - g ^ 1 . • . . m u 7 i t u 6 U4 [15 i - as] .
A glance through this list will show that our three formulas vary not in-
considerably from one source to another.
1. The formula for change of dynasty occurs in three principaF forms:
a) In WB, P4, Li, Sui, SU3+4, and J;
Aki gist ukul ba-sig (WB : ba-an-sig) nam-iugal-bi - § 5
b a- 1 d m
^The city A was smitten with weapons;®® its kingship was carried®^ to the city B.”
In totals with more than one ruler the text presumably used i b - as .
There is only this one example of the formula for introducing single rulers. As the
name is followed by 1 u g a 1 - ^ m , the subject element is (correctly) omitted.
For the sake of convenience and greater perspicuity we have here grouped WB with
P 4 , Li, Sui, Su 3 + 4 , and J, although strictly speaking it represents a separate form differing
from the others by having ba-an-sig instead of b a - s i g . In the same way we have
grouped S and Ps together, although Ps writes ba-an-kdr and ba-an-tdm while
S has b a - k d r and b a - 1 d m . To separate WB from P4, Li, Sui, SU 3 + 4 , and J and to
separate S from Ps merely because of this small and insignificant (see p. 41) variation
would quite unnecessarily blur the basic grouping under «i»t ukul ba-sig, ba-gul,
and bala-bi ba-kdr.
®®Guterbock in ZA n.F. VIII (1934) 2 makes «*Hukul subject and translates “die
Stadt X schlug die Waffe’^; but since the interest of the author of the King List so clearly
centers in the ruling cities (see below, n. 86 ), it is more natural to have the city name in
the most prominent position, i.e., as subject.
This formula is rendered “the kingdom of . . . . passed to ” or the. like by al-
most all scholars. But an occurrence of the same formula in an inscription of Utu-hefal
Textual Peoblems
37
h) In PsC?) and Siis: ■■
A^^ba-gul nam-lngal-bi . ba-tfim
, “The city A.was' destroyed; its kingsliip,%?as carried to the city B.’'
, „ :c)„In.S and Pg:
A^^ - a (k) , (Pg: A^^) bala-bi ba-kdr (Pg: b a - an - k dr) ii a m -
Ingal-bi ' b a'-tdm (Pgr ba-an'« tdm)
“The turn (to reign)' of the city A was changed; its kingship was carried to the
cityB/^
One text, K, omits the formula aitogether,
2 . The formula for dynasty total occurs in six different forms:
a) In Sui, Sug, and SU3+4:
x lugal mu-bi y mu l-ag
“x kings reigned®^ its (the city^s)®® years, y years/^
b) InPj,:
xlugal mu-bi y mu ib-ag
“x kings reigned its (the city's) years, 1/ years/^
(RA IX [1912] 112-13 i 1-6), which contains our phrase: . . , . g u - t i » u in*^^ ....Id
nam«lugal ke-en-gi-rd kur-§^ ba-tdm-a, “Gutium . . . . , who had
carried the kingship of Sumer off to the mountains/' leaves no doubt that du represents
a transitive verb. We must therefore read b a - 1 d m (I) and b a - a n - 1 d m (!) , “was
carried" (b a - 1 d m is the normal passive preterit 3d sg.; b a - a n - 1 d m is the corre-
sponding form used by the scril>es who followed what Poebel calls “post-Sumerian sys-
tem A." See AJSL L [1933/34] 170). The kinphip was thus not imagined as jxjrsonai
and moving from city to city according to its own wOi but as an inanimate thing — prob-
ably closely tied up with its symbols, the scepter and crown—which had to be taken or
carried from one place to another.
^We retain the traditional rendering of a (k) as “reigned," although, as PtjeM has
pointed out in OLZ XV (1912) 291 f., a (k) means only “to do," “to pc^rform." “To
reign" is n a m - e n — a (k) , “to perform lordship," or n a m - 1 u g a i — a (k) , “to
perform kingship." Poebel is inclined to believe that a(k) in our formulas takes mu,
“years," as object: “so und so viele Jahre hat er gemacht." We consider his other explana-
tion, that “ein nam-lugal zu ail den in-ag-Batzen dem Sinne nach zu erganzen .... ist,"
much more satisfactory.
The suiSx - b i must here, as in the preceding formula, refer to the city in question
and cannot, as is generally supposed by translators, refer to its kings. This is plainly showm
by the fact that - b i is retained even when the dynasty consists of only one ruler and
the verb changes to singular (e.g. WB v 40-41: 1 lugai mu-bi 100 i - as ; WB viii
5-6: 1 [lugai] mu-bi 7 §u-§i 6 fUiM* > 1 -^ 5 ] ; S obv. 21: 1 lugai m u-bi 25
in-as). If -bi referred to the kings, we should here have had 1 iugal mu-ni (!) x
i - as (or in- as) . The list is primarily concerned with the kingship of cities, not of single
persons, as is clearly expressed in the framework as a whole: . The kingship was
in Kish. In Kish 6a. .ur(?) became king and ruled 1,200 years; N. ruled 960 years;
.... 23 kings ruled its 24,510 years, 3 months, and 3| days. Kish was smitten with weap-
ons; its kingship was carried to E-Annaik). In E-Annaik) "
, 3 S"
The SuMEBiAN: King, List
X I u g a 1
“x kings
d) In S:
X lugal-e-ne
''".'■■■'"‘VMngs- \
e) InPg:
X lugai-e-ne
“x kings
rn u - b i y
ib-as
reigned its (the city’s) y years.’’
mu-bi y in-ak-es
reigned its (the city’s) y years.”
mu y in-ak-e§
reigned y years.”
/) InK:
X lugal-e-ne bala mu y in-as-me-eS
'‘x kings of the dynasty of A reigned y years.”
3 . The formula for introducing single rulers occurs in four forms:
a) In WB and J(?):
N. mu X i-a5
“N. reigned x years.”
h) In P2, P3, P4, Pe, Li, L2, Sui, Su2, SU3+4, and G:
N. X m u i - as
reigned x years.”
c) InPsandK:
N. m u X i n - as
“N. reigned x years.”
d) In S:
N. X m u i n - as
reigned x years.”
The origin and probable causes of most of these variants are fairly clear. We
notice first a certain number of variants which must be due to the application
of the grammatical and orthographical rules taught in the scribal schools of the
Isin-Larsa and post-Hammurabi periods. The variants ba-sig : ba-an-
sig; ba-kfir : ba-an-kfir, and ba-tfim : ba-an-ttim of the
formula for change of dynasty and the variant i - ae : i n - as of the formula
for introducing single rulers obviously have their origin in the late custom
of expressing the subject - n - of the verbal form in writing.®*^ The other
variant in the formula for introducing single rulers, mu x : x mu, corre-
sponds similarly to the change from the older Sumerian usage, according to
which the numeral follows the word for that which is counted, to the later
The date of this custom is discussed in detail on pp. 131-35.
Textual Problems
39
usage in wiikh;the num^ precedes. Application of later grammatical
rules is likewise responsible for the' irariant I u g a 1 . . . . f b - : 1 ii g a 1 -
0 - n e in - a k- e § : lug a 1 e -n e . . . , i n - ar, • m e - e ^ in the for-
mula for dynasty total. The old collective plural, winch in tlie noun is ex-
pressed /by; the naked stem, in the verb by the form i - b - lal, grew obso-
lete ■ in the Isin-Larsa period,®® in' which i - b - lal wm chiefly used for
3d sg. of the causative. It is therefore understandable that copyists of this
period should correct 1 u ga 1 . . , . i b-as to the form which they consid-
ered correct, I u g a 1 - e - n e . . , . . i n - a k - e § , and that still later copy-
ists should change to lugal-e-ne .... in-as-me-el.
Other variants, however, seem completely independent of any rules what-
ever, so much so indeed that we must ascribe their origin to idiosyncrasies
in individual copyists. A variant of this type is that in the formula for cliaoge
of d3naasty, A^^ s'H u k u I ba-sig nam-Iugal-bi ba-tiim :
A^'ba-gul nam-lugal-bi ba-tdm : A^'-a (k) bala-bi
ba-kdr nam-lugal-bi ba-tiim. The three forms say vir-
tually the same thing, and it is quite impossible to imagine any rule which
would make scribes who found, for example, u k u 1 ba-sig in their
originals change to bala-bi ba-kdrortoba-gul.
Somewhat less clear are the causes which produced the variant m u - b i y
mu:mu-bi y:mu y in the formula for dynasty total. Such a syntac-
tical construction asx lugalmu-biyib-as, “a: kings reigned its (the
city^s) y years, has close parallels in Old Sumerian.®® It seems possible that
such a form would sound incomplete to later scribes. The numeral has ref-
erence to the preceding m u - b i , ^^its years”; but, since the word for that
which is counted was in later times generally placed after the numeral, they
may have felt that something was missing and so have added a second m u .
Even if we admit the probability of such a feeling, however, we have no
means to judge its strength. Would it unavoidably suggest to every scribe
that he should add a m u after the numeral, thus acting with the force of a
grammatical rule; or was it merely a matter of personal feeling for the lan-
guage, leaving the individuality of the scribe a considerable amount of play?®^
See Poebel, GSG §§ 303-5.
See the detailed discussion of this change on p. 129. That i - b - lal is collective was
shown by PoeM, Grammatical Texts (PBS VI 1 [1914]} p. 101.
®®Cf. e.g, E-Anna(k)-tum Brick A p. xiv, No. 8; SAKj p. 26 h) ill 5— iv 9: 4-
an»na-ttim-e,...umma^' gin- S ^ b f - s i SAnAH-nii-KiD- b i 20 m u - d u l> ,
''E-Anna(k)-tum .... defeated Umma and heaped up its twenty burial mounds.”
The construction as a whole is so rare that our material does not even permit us to
form an idea of which form was prevalent in the various periods.
40
The Sumeeian King List
The last form, x liigal-e-ne mu y in-ak-es,is probably due to
the fact that the scribe in question was not aware that the - b i refers to
the city in which the dynasty reigned. He expected to find a simple sum-
mary: “x kings. They reigned y years'^ and got a smoother text by omit-
ting “ b i .
Lastly there is the variant i - as in the formula for dynasty total as
against ib-as, in-ak-es, or in-as-me-es. This very curious
use of the singular in passages where the context clearly demands col-
lective or plural becomes intelligible when we notice that it is limited to three
versions, Sui, Su2, and 803+4, which all come from Elam. In Elamite scribes
we can expect but limited knowledge of Sumerian grammar. That they did
not understand the reasons for the occasional change in their originals from
} - as within the dynasties to 1 b - as in the totals and therefore disregarded
it is not to be wondered at, especially when we consider that their own tongue,
the Elamite, does not stress the difference between singular and plural in
the verb.®^
We thus see that some of our variants are due to the application of later
linguistic norms, some have been caused by idios3mcrasies in individual copy-
ists, and one, the variant mu-bi y mu:mu-bi y:mu y, takes an in-
termediate position; it seems dependent upon a change in usage, but as we
do not know how complete this change was we cannot decide whether the
new usage acted as a fixed norm or left the decision with the individual scribe
and his feeling for the language. Lastly, a single variant found only in the
manuscripts from Elam seems to have originated through influence from the
native language of Elam combined with limited knowledge of Sumerian.
All of these variants may be characterized as intentional; they are ( 1 ) cor-
rections, (2) changes to forms which pleased the copyist better than those he
found in the original, or ( 3 ) systematic disregardings of differences which he
did not understand. This element of intention which characterizes the vari-
ants makes them in certain cases less valuable for our present purpose. There
is very little probability that two copyists should independently chance to
make the same unintentional deviation in copying at the same place in the
list. When we find the same error in two manuscripts we are therefore en-
titled to conclude that both inherited the error from a single original. In the
case of intentional variants, however, the value varies. We can consider it
F. Bork in his article Rmllexikon der V orgeschichte, hrsg. von Max Ebert, III
(Berlin, 1925) 78 b: ^^Ein Vergleich der alten Sprache mit dem 5ozi lehrt, dass auch jene
von Hause ausSingularundPluralnichtunterschieden hat.”
41
Textuai. Peobmms
improbable that' two scribes should'both indepciKicrifly feel dissaiisficd with,
for example^ the phrase u k ii 1. b a -■ s i g which they foimci in their orig-
inals and independently think np b a 1 a - b i b a - k li r as the suitable sub-
stitute; but we must admit .'that two scribes who accepted tfie same norms
for correct language (e.g. that .the 'Sd sg. of the transitive verb was i - n -
that the plural of .personal noxms ^was -e-ne, etc.) would both be very
likely to notice deviations from these norms in their originals and to correct
them in a . similar way (i as io i n - as. , 1 u g a 1 to i u g a 1 - e - n e j etc.)*
Variants of the latter type, corrections .to fixed norms, accordingly give far
less certainty that sources in which they occur liave inherited tliem from
a common ancestor. They may have been introduced independently b}^ dif-
ferent scribes. The evidence from such variants should therefore be used with
great caution and preferably where it has the support of other evidence of
more reliable type. And evidence from such variants cannot outweigh that
of unintentional variants or variants due to idiosyncrasy if these point in a
different direction.
On a par with the variants due to the application of grammatical rules is
the use of the singular form of the verb in the manuscripts from Elam. The
background of this variant, limited knowledge of Sumerian subject to influence
from the undercurrents of a native language which does not stress the dis-
tinction between plural and singular in the verb, can be presupposed in most
Elamite copyists. We can consider it probable that two such scribes would
independently decide to disregard the difference between i - as and i b - as ,
which they did not understand.
We are thus in a position to arrange our variants in order according to their
relative values as indicators of relationship:
1. Of high value
In formula for change of dynasty
s*”t ukul ba-sig
b a - g u 1
bala-bi ba-kfir
omitted
2. Of unknown value
In formula for dynasty total:
m u - b i y m u
m u - b i y
y
■WB, P4, lii, Sui, Su3.f1, 1
Paf?), SU3
Ps, S
K
m u
Pa, Sui, Su2, SU3+.4
WB, Pe, Li, S, J
P5,K
12^
The Shmeeian King List'
3. Of low value
In formula for dynasty total:
lugai ....l-as
lugai ....fb-as
lugai-e-ue . . . .in-ak-es
lugai-e«ne. . . .in-as-me-eS
In formula for introducing single rulers:
"i„- as "
i n - as
In formula for introducing single rulers:
mu X
X mu
Sui, Su2, SU34.4
WB, P2, Ps, Li, J(?)
P5,S
K
WB, P2, Psj P 4 » Ps, Li, L2, Sui, Su 2 ,
SU 3 -{- 4 > O, J
Pb, s, k
WB, Ps, K, J
P2, Psi P47 Pe, Li, L2, S, Sui, Su2, SU34-4, G
We may proceed to consider these groupings of the manuscripts in con-
junction with those at which we arrived on the basis of the Atabba and Agade
variants. ■
GENEALOGICAL TABLE BASED ON THE FOEEGOING VARIANTS
The Atabba variants and the variants in the reigns of the Agade rulers
showed that the manuscripts involved derive from the original as follows:
ATABBA VARIANTS A6ADE VARIANTS
WB P3 P5 Su, WB L, P3 S Su, Su3,^
In both cases we found on one side the source WB representing the original
fairly closely and on the other a text which we called in which one or
more errors had been committed. Through this text the remainder of the
sources descended. Although we have called the erroneous text “B^^ in both
cases it is clear that the Atabba mistake and the Rimush mistake need not
necessarily have happened in the very same copy. We should therefore make
a distinction and — admitting that the two texts may be identical — designate
the text in which the Atabba mistake was made as “Bi'^ and that in which
the Rtmush mistake was made as ^*62.”
Comparing our two diagrams we see that, even if we suppose that Bi and
B2 were different texts, they must at least have belonged to the same line of
descent from the original, Bi having derived from B2 or vice versa. This fol-
43
TEXTUAii^- TmiBmm
lows, from the fact that three of ourmamiscripts, J\ aiiti Siii, exhibit tlif*
errors ^ of both Bi aiiclBa, which presupposes that the line along which ihc‘y
descended from the original passed through both these texts. Wc have ac-
cordingly only three possibilities tO' take into aceotiui:
We may investigate these one after another to see how each will influence the
relative positions of the manuscripts involved.
Assuming first that Possibility I is correct, we can place the manuscripts
Li, P2, P3, S, Sui, and Su3-t-4 below the brace, because we know from the Agade
diagram that they derive from B2. This leaves P5, which occurs in the Atabba
diagram. Since this version is only known to be derived from Bi, there is a
priori the possibility that it branched off directly after it had passed this text
and did not follow the others on their way through B2. In reality, however,
that cannot have been the case, as is shown by variants in the formulas. In
the formula for change of dynasty the form ukul ba-sigis found in
WB, in texts which have passed Bi, such as Sui, and in texts w^hich have
passed B2, such as Sui and Li, Being thus represented in both main branches
of the tradition (WB and the B texts), ukul ba-sig obviously must
be the form used by the original. The variants b a - g u 1 and b a 1 a - b i
b a - k u r , which occur only in texts derived from Bi and B2, must thus
have arisen later. Now our text P3 (which derives from Bi) has the variant
bala-bi ba-kiir; this it shares with one other text, S, which descends
from Bo- Since this is one of our “reliable"’ variants (see pp. 40 f.), we may con-
clude that P5 and S derived it from a common ancestor, which we shall call
“Y.” This conclusion is corroborated by another, in itself less reliable, vari-
ant, lugal-e-ne. . . .in-ak-eS, which also is peculiar to S and Ps
and which similarly indicates that these two sources passed through one or
more ancestors peculiar to them alone. Y must, of course, be placed farther
down in the line of descent than Bi and B2, for, as we have seen, other texts
which have passed Bi and B2 (such as Sui and Li) have retained the orig-
inal ukul b a - s i g . If Y is to be placed after B2, then naturally Pg,
which derives from Y, also must be placed after B2 and cannot have swerved
off after Bi.
44
ThE' Sitmeeian: Kino List
If Possibility I is the correct one, that is, if Bi and Bg are different texts
and B2 derived from Bi, the manuscripts with which we have here been deal-
ing must accordingly descend from the original as follows:
We may next look at Possibility II, which, like Possibility I, presupposes
that Bi and B2 are different but which has Bi derived from B2« If this possi-
bility is the correct one, we can obviously place the manuscripts P2, P3, Ps,
and Sui under the brace, because the Atabba diagram shows that these derive
from Bi:
Original
With the sources S, SU3+4, and Li, however, we must reckon with the possi-
bility that they did not follow the others, for they are only known to derive
from B2 and so may have swerved off directly after that text without passing
Bi. It is therefore necessary to examine these cases more closely.
(1) S. We have just seen that the source Ps can be placed under the brace
below Bi and must therefore have passed both B2 and Bi in its descent from
the original When we discussed Possibility I we saw, too, that Ps and S
must have a common ancestor or series of ancestors (Y) peculiar to them,, in
which their characteristic variants bala-bi ba-kdr and 1 u g a 1 -
e-ne....in-ak-e§ arose. It was clear, furthermore, that Y must be
sought farther down in Ps's line of descent than B2 and Bi, for as late as in Bi
the change to bala-bi ba-kdr which is characteristic for Y has not
yet happened, as is shown by the fact that Sui, which also has passed through
both B2 and Bi, preserves the original ukul ba-sig intact. If Y is
farther down the line than Bi, however, S, which derives from Y, must also
be farther down than Bi and therefore cannot have swerved off after B2.
(2) SU3+4. When we discussed the variants in the reigns of the Agade rulers
Textual Peoblems
45
we saw that Sui and SU3+4 must have had a common ancestor (Su) which Imd
a lacuna at the end of the Agade dynasty (p. 25 ). Wc know also that Sui has
passed through both B2 and Bi. But did Su come before or after Bi in the line
of descent of Sui? The question is easily answered because P2, in which the
total for the Agade dynasty indicates that nothing was missing, derives from
Bi, which must likewise have preserved this dynasty intact. Su, the text with
the lacuna, must therefore follow Bj in the line of descent of Sui, and Su’s
other descendant, SU3+4, caimot have swerved off after Bg.
( 3 ) Li. With this text the material at our disposal does not permit us to
decide whether it followed the other sources through Bi or whether it swerved
off immediately after it had passed B2. We must therefore leave the ques-
tion open.
We have seen that six of our manuscripts— P2, P3, P3, S, Sui, and SU3+4 —
must have descended through both Ba and Bi if Possibility II is the correct
one. As for Li, we are unable to decide whether it followed the others or
branched off after B2. The derivation of the manuscripts would therefore be
as follows:
Lastly there is Possibility III. If this is correct, Bi and B2 are only different
names of the same text, which we may designate as "B.” Since Bi and B2 are
here identical we can obviously place all the manuscripts derived from Bi in
the Atabba diagram and from B2 in the Agade diagram below the brace, that
is, P2, P3, Ps, S, Sui, SU3+4, and Li. The reasons which made us assume a
common ancestor for P5 and S (Y) and a common ancestor for Sui and SU3+4
(Su) are naturally not affected by the identification of Bi and B2. The deriva-
tion of our manuscripts according to Possibility III is therefore:
46
The Sumerian King List
Comparing the diagrams for our three possibilities we see that they lead
to practically the same results. In all three cases the sources Ps, Pa? Psr S, Sui,
and SU34.4 must have descended through both Bi and B2; only Li may, if the
second possibility should be correct and Bi derive from B2, have taken a dif-
ferent course, swerving off directly after Bg, but it is not necessary that it
should have done so. The chances that Li descended through both Bi and Bg
are three out of four. Since the various possibilities lead to almost the same
result, we can draw up a single diagram which accounts for them all :
here)
The foregoing diagram is based upon the material presented by the Atabba
variants, the variants in the reigns of the Agade rulers, and a variation in the
formula for change of dynasty which can be considered absolutely reliable, the
variation between ukul ba-sig and b a 1 a - b i b a - k li r.
This obviously does not exhaust the information which can be gained from
the variants in the formulas; for, although we must place the variants ^^of low
value’^ apart as unsuitable, we still have left the b a- gul variant and
also the variant m u - b i y m u : mu-bi y : m u y in the formula for
dynasty total, which for all we know may be of high value and which can
therefore be used if we exercise due caution.
The variant b a - g u 1 in the formula for change of dynasty occurs in Su2
and seems for reasons of space the only possible restoration of the broken for-
mula in P2: b a - [ Since the variant occurs in no other texts and is not
of the type likely to originate independently, we may conclude that Su2 and
P2 had a common ancestor in which the change to b a - g u 1 was made and
from which they inherited it.
Unfortunately this conclusion cannot be drawn with full certainty. Among
the variants in the formulas is one, the use of the singular verb form i - as
in the formula for dynasty total, which is peculiar to the sources from Elam
(Sui, Su2, and SU34.4) and suggests that Su2 should be grouped with Sui and
In the best preserved passage, iii 17, there is room for only one sign after b a - .
FoebeFs reading - m a instead of - b a (PBS IV 1, p. 76) is not consistent with his copy;
see p. 31, n. 59.
TEXTVAh Peoblems
47
S1134.4 rather than with P2. This variaixt is listed with tliose low value;’
and w^e have shown above (pp, 4 - 0 - 41 ) 'that it depends upon qualifies whieh
may be presupposed in any Elamite scribe, so that it may wc‘ll have* originated
independently in two texts* Normally, 'therefore, its evidence would be of no
consequence compared to that of the'ba-gul variant, which belongs to
our most reliable type. In the present case, however, there is reason to men-
tion' it; for the fact that b a - g u 1 is only partly preserved in P2 and has to
be restored introduces an element of uncertainty which is naturally stressed
when we find that the i-as variant, though admittedly of doubtful value,
points away from the combmation P2 Su2. Since this grouping P2 Sih
depends wholly upon the restoration of ba-gul in Ps, we can accept it only
with reserve and as a tentative solution. Calling the supposed common origi-
nal “X;' we may express the element of uncertainty by adding a query after X
and by using a dotted brace:
X?
In our larger diagram X must be placed under the brace below Bi and B2,
for we know that P2 passed through these texts and also that in them the origi-
nal ukul ba-sig had not yet been changed to ba-gul.
Another variant of interest ismu-bi y mu:mu-bi y: mu yin
the formula for dynasty total. The form m u - b i y occurs in WB, Ps, Li,
and S. Comparing our main diagram we see that through these sources it is
represented in both of the principal branches of the tradition and must there-
fore be the form used in the original. The form m u - b i y mu occurs in
P2, Sui, Su2, and SU3+4, Assuming that the manuscripts mentioned inherited
this variant from a single text, we must obviously place that text, which we
may call higher up in the genealogical table than Su, from which as
we have seen above Sui and SU34.4 derive, and than X, which we have just
postulated as the immediate ancestor of P2 and Su2. The text Su is character-
ized among other things by a lacuna at the end of the Agade dynasty. But
this lacuna cannot yet have existed in Z, for P2, which also derives from Z, ap-
pears to have had the Agade dynasty intact. The lacuna must therefore have
originated between Z and the two texts which have it, Sui and SU3+4. Similarly
X, which is characterized by the change from ukul ba-sigtoba-
ii*'— — ‘S
gul, must be placed between Z and P2 Sua which have this change;
that Z itself must still have had the original ukul ba-sigis shown
48
The Sumeeian King List
by the fact that Sux and SU3+4, which also derive from it, preserve that form
unchanged. Acknowledging by queries and dotted lines that the value of our
variant is unknown and that we therefore cannot trust it implicitly, we may
draw up. the diagram,
h su
In the main diagram Z must be placed under the brace below Bi and B2; for,
since a source such as S, which derives through both these texts, has inherited
the original m u - b i y, the change tomu-bi y m u must have happened
later than Bi and B2.
Lastly there is the form mu y, which is peculiar to the two sources K
and P5. In other respects also K shows close affinity to Ps. As will be re-
membered, K omits the formula for change of dynasty but gives the formula
for dynasty total asx lugal-e-ne bala A^* mu y in-as-me-eS.
This stands completely alone among our formulas but looks more than any-
thing else as if a later scribe had tried to compress into a single formula the
data given by the formulas for change of dynasty and for dynasty total as
these appear in P5: A^^ bala-bi ba-an-kiir nam-lugal-bi
B^‘-se ba-tiim and X lugal-e-ne mu y in-ak-es. The words
b a 1 a A^‘ were grafted from the formula for change of dynasty, and x
lugal-e-ne mu y in-as-me-es is the formula for dynasty total
of P5 except that i n - a k - e s has been changed to i n - as - m e - e s , which
was considered a better form in late times.^^ When we consider the agree-
ment on the variant m u y in conjunction with the fact that on the whole
the singular formula of K stands nearer P5 than any other text, we may be
justified in placing K, at least provisionally, as a late offshoot of P5:
Y
We have now considered all the variants from the formulas except those
listed as “of low value, variants too unsafe to serve as basis for any conclu-
See Poebel, GSG § 456. That the formulas of K are related to those of older lists was
noted by Poebel in OLZ XV (1912) 293.
Textual Problems 49
sions. We might therefore stop here. - As it happens^ liowever, tlierc^ is among
the variants low value’' a single one which deserves closer attention be-
cause its evidence can be supported in a rather curious nianiK*r.
If we would group our sources strictly according to tlae formulas wlndi they
use we would find only three cases in which two sources have an almost identi-
cal set of formulas, namely WB ' J, Li P4, and Sui SU3+4. The group
which interests us here is WB ^ J, which has the formulas A^'«‘^tiikul
ba-sig (WB; ba-an-sig) , . x lugal mu-bi y fb-ag, and
N. m u X i - as . Although WB and J are alike in all three formulas, tlie cru-
cial point upon which the grouping rests is in reality the variant m u x in the
formula for introducing single rulers, for only by using m u x instead of x
m u do WB and J stand apart from such sources as Lt and P4 as a separate
group. As this variant belongs to a type which gives little safety (cf. p. 42),
we cannot accept the grouping from its evidence alone. Comparing the two
texts WB and J we notice, however, that not only are the formulas the same
in both but also tlie arrangement of the text corresponds. The beginning and
end of the tablet upon which J is written are preserved. The text begins
[ki-su-lii-ub 4 -gar] g u - 1 i - u u k u I ba-sig, and at
this same point begins col. viii in WB : k i - s u - 1 u - u {>4 - g a r g [u -
t i (?) - u 11 k u 1 b a - a n - s i g>] . The last two lines of J, n a m -
iugal-bi [i]-si-in^^-§^ ba-tiim, appear as line 22 in WB, al-
most exactly at the middle of the column, which has 45 lines.'*^^ We must
therefore assume that J was written on tablets each of which took exactly
half a column in WB and every second one of which began at the same place
in the text as WB’s columns. Such close correspondence in arrangement is
not found between any other two texts among our sources'^^' and can hardly
be accidental. Apparently the scribes who wrote J and WB copied from the
same text and took care to base their arrangement of the text in tablets or
columns upon that used in this original, so that they did not run the risk of
coming out with a final tablet or column which had only a few lines of wTiting.
Considering the fact that WB and J use the same set of formulas in con-
Mrs. Brookens calls my attention to the fact that the copyist who wTote WB omit-
ted the words ukul ba-an-slg after viii 1 (cf. p. 30, n. 52). Had the scribe not
jumped a line here, this column of WB would have had 40 lines and the phrase with which
J ends would have ap|>eared as line 23, i.e., exactly at the middle of the column.
Sus and Sin are no exception. As we have shown above (p. 10, n. 24), the correspond-
ence in arrangement indicates in that case that the two fragments are parts of the same
document.
I
60
The Sxjmeeian King List
junction with the striking similarity in the way they have distributed the
text, we are justified in assuming that they derive from a common ancestor.
We may call this ancestor and get the diagram
A . ■
WB J
We may now proceed to add the various new items of information to our
main diagram. With the exception of the last, however, the derivation of J
and WB from a common ancestor A, these new groupings cannot be considered
final, because our evidence has not permitted us to exclude a small element of
uncertainty. Since it is of importance to be able to ascertain at a glance which
parts of the diagram are absolutely certain and which might still give reason
for doubt, we have indicated the latter by means of queries and dotted lines.
If the reader imagines the dotted lines and the queried texts blotted out, the
remaining diagram will represent what we know with certainty.
K?
SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE FROM VARIANTS OF MORE LIMITED SCOPE
The establishing of the main lines of the genealogical table should make it
possible to utilize for confirmation and new details variants of more limited
scope than those hitherto considered. We possess several such variants, for
which some four or five manuscripts can be compared, and v/e must accordingly
examine them to see whether they contain evidence of value.
THE FOURTH DYNASTY OP URUK
We have called attention earlier (pp. 25-26) to the fact that Sui and SU 3+4
both give incomplete accounts of the Agade dynasty, suggesting that they
TEXTUAIi : PbOBIiEMS
51
ikjrivc? from a common ancestor in which the,''la.st part of the Agade dynasty
liad been damaged. We mentioned also that-the condusioii tliat Siii and Sijsh
derive from a common damaged. ancestor Bould be made wifli absolute ec^r-
tainty because the Agade dynasty is not- the only passage in which they give
evidence of common lacunas. Such, a case is the 4th dynasty of IJruk. Tiie ac-
count of this .dynasty is wholly preserved in WB and S. It contained five
rulers: Ur-iiigin(ak), Tlr-gigir(ak)' the son of Ur-mgin(ak), Kudda, Pu^ur-ili,
and Ur-TJtu(k). WB gives the total of the reigns as 30 years, S as 26, corre-
sponding to tho' fact that according to WB Ur-i.iigin(ak) reigned 7 years, ac-
cording to S only 3. P4, in which only the total is preserved, also gives 26
years; so we may assume that it had the same account of the dynasty as S.
Quite different is the account which Sui and SU3+4 give. Both tliese texts
begin like the others with Ur-nigin(ak) and Ur-gigir(ak), but then they stop.
SU3+4 passes directly to Ur-Utu(k) and the dynasty total, inserting a line to
say that Ur-Utu(k) was son of Ur-gigir(ak). Sui lists an otherwise unknown
king I ii g a 1 - m e - 1 a m , who is similarly stated to be son of ITr-gigir(ak).
The reigns given by Siu and Sus-f4 differ considerably from tliose of the
other texts. SU3+4 gives Ur-nigin(ak) 15 years, Ur-gigir(ak) 7, and Ur-Utu(k)
25. The figures 15 and 7 reappear in Sui, but as the reigns of Ur-gigir(ak)
and the new king lugal-me-Iam , while Ur-nigin(ak) according to
that text reigned 30 years.
To follow in detail the genesis of these complicated variants is hardly pos-
sible for the present, but so much seems clear: The original from which SU3+4
derives had a lacuna in the middle of the dynasty wiping out Kudda and Pu-
zur-ili, so that the copyist had to pass from Ur-gigir(ak) directly to Ur-Utu(k ) ;
and this same lacuna existed in the original of Sui, but there it had widened
still more, so that the name of tJr-tJtu(k) also had become illegible. The curi-
ous restoration lugal-me-14m is probably taken from a still more
damaged parallel text of Y type. In the damaged total 5 lugal-e-ne
the scribe has thought to recognize a proper name,
iugal-me(!)-lam ^
If it was already highly improbable that two copies of the King List both
damaged at exactly the same spot, namely in the Agade dynasty, existed in
Elam, it becomes definitely impossible to imagine them damaged twice by
accident and both times damaged at exactly corresponding passages. Our vari-
ant is therefore decisive evidence that Sui and Su3f4 derive from the same
ancestor.
On the use of more than one text in copying see pp. 53-55.
33949
52
The SuMEEite'. 'K ing' Lis'T
THE INTERREGNUM IN THE AG ABE PERIOD
The section dealing with the interregnum after Shar-kali-sharn is preserved
more or loss
completely
in five manuscripts: WB, P 3 , Li, S,
and SU 3 + 4 :
WB
s
[a-ba-am 1
!u]gal a-ba-am nu lugal
a-ba-a[m lugal a-ba-am
n u lugal]
[ -gij-gu
lugal
“i - g i4 - g i4 [1] u g [a 1] “i - m i
[1] u g a 1
[
]
lugal
"^n a - n u - u m
lugal "^i-lu-
1 u lugal
[
]
lugal
4 - b i 3 m u i n - as
1
]
1 u gal
[
]
lugal
[
1
i b - as
Su3 4-4
P 3
Li
a-ba lugal
[m]a-nu<m
mr
ma-nu-um s[df]
a-ba lug
a 1 - a m
ma-nihim la
M[r]
inamu-um l{a 6‘dr]
ir-gi4-gi4
lugal
I'-giirgii
mr
ir4ci4z[i sdr]
na-nu-u m
lugal
i-mi
mr
nar-riu-{um sdr]
i - m i
lugal
na-ni
mr
i-[mi Mr]
i -I u -lu
lugal
e4u4u
mr
[ ]
[
] lugal
4 - b i 3 mu
ff b - as"*
[ ]
[
]
Disregarding those variants which appear in only a single manuscript and
which are therefore of no help in grouping the manuscripts, we notice (1) that
the Sumerian phrase a-ba-am lugai a-ba-^m nu lugal of WB,
S, and — mutaiis mutandis — SU3+4 varies with the Akkadian ma->nvrum mr
ma-nu-um la Sdr of P3 and Li; (2) that the order of the rulers, which is Irgigi,
Nanum, Imi, Ilulu in SU3+4 and Li, is Igigi, Imi, Nani, Elulu in P3 and S;
( 3 ) that the name of the first ruler is written ir-M-M or i r - g i4 - g i4 in L]
and SU3+4 but i - or i - g i4 - g i4 in P3 and S; and ( 4 ) that the total in WB
and SU34-4 contains the word lugal, whereas S and P3 do not have that
word. If we arrange the variants successively it will be seen that their dis-
tribution among the manuscripts is peculiar;
abam lugal abani nu lugal WB Su 8+4 S manum sar manum la lar P 3 Li
Irgigi, Nanum, Imi, Ilulu Su 34-4 Li Igigi, Imi, Nani, Elulu P 3 S
ir-gi4/ki-gi4/ki SU 3+4 Li i / i - g i4 - g i4 P 3 S
[4 - b i (?)] lugal [mu 3/3 mu]
i b / [i] - as WB Sus-f 4 4-bi3mu ib/in-asPaS
We notice here that Li and S suddenly change places when we pass from
the first variant to the others. In the abam: manmn variant S follows
Textuai. Pkobeems
53
Su 3+4 and differs from Lj, which follows P^; in the following variants^ how-
ever, S follows p3, and it is Li which follows, SU34 4,
Such a distribution of the variants cannot possibly hav(» developc^d tfiroiigh
normal transmission. To explain it. we must assume either tliat one of our
variants arose independently in, two, or more, manuscripts or that the scribe
of one of them used two different texts as originals for his copy. An example
may elucidate the latter possibility. If the line abam lugal abam
n u lugal was destroyed in the original of Li and the copyist restored it
from another text iii his possession, a text of the same type as P3, we can
understand how Li might follow P3 as far as this variant is concerned but dif-
fer from it already in the next line. It is, however, equally possible that it was
the section containing the three following variants which was destroyed in
the original of Li and that the scribe restored it from a text like 803+4. There
is thus a variety of ways in which this distribution of variants may have
come about: independent origin of two or more variants, restoration of one
or another section from texts of different type, etc. Which of the many possi-
bilities is the correct one cannot be decided; and, as the evidence of this sec-
tion must remain ambiguous, we cannot use it with safety for the recon-
struction of the genealogical table.
THE KXJ(g)-BABA VARIANT
Queen Ku(g)-Baba of Kish constitutes a separate dynasty in manuscripts
WB, Li, P2, and Sui, whereas she is placed at the head of the 4 th dynasty of
Kish in S and SU3+4. Several indications show that the arrangement with
Ku(g)-Baba as a separate dynasty is that of the original. It is — to mention
only one such indication — vouched for in both branches of our tradition.®^ The
variant which places Ku(g)-Baba at the head of the 4 th dynasty of Kish must
therefore be secondary. Since the 4 th dynasty of Kish begins with Puzur-Sin,
a king stated to be the son of Ku(g)-Baba, our variant was no doubt introduced
by a scribe who considered it impossible to separate the reign of Ku(g)“Baba
from that of her son by the reign of a complete dynasty of another city. The
correction occurs in two of the manuscripts, S and SU3+4, and it is naturally
tempting to assume that they have inherited it from a common ancestor. Such
an assumption is, however, impossible. We have seen above that a number of
identical omissions in Sui and SU3+4 put it beyond doubt that these sources
derive from a common ancestor, which we have called Since Sui pre-
serves the original arrangement with Ku(g)-Baba as a separate dynasty, while
SU3+4 shows the correction, we would obviously have to assume that the cor-
See also the discussion of this variant on pp. 159 f .
54
The Sumerian King List
rectiori was made somewhere between Su and SU 3 + 4 . We know, however, that
S, which also has the correction, is not derived through Su; therefore it cannot
derive from a descendant of Su. Hence S and SU 3+4 cannot have inherited
their correction from a common ancestor, and the distribution of the variant
must be due to ^^double origin’^; that is, it was made twice independently, or
the scribe who wrote one of the two manuscripts must have used a text of
different type along with his original. Both of these explanations are possible.
The separation of Ku(g)-Baba from her son is in itself a very curious feature
which may well have been noticed and corrected independently by two dif-
ferent scribes. But there are special reasons which make the other possibility
even more likely. It will be remembered from the section on formulas that in a
single passage in Su 3 h -4 (hi 22-30) the formula for introducing single rulers
differs from that used elsewhere in the text. The formula in this passage is
N. m u X i " ao ; elsewhere it is N. x mu i - as . The variant mux appears
in the other manuscripts only in the A group — WB and J — and in the Y
group, in P 5 . Its sudden occurrence in a short section of Su 3 -f 4 must there-
fore mean that this section was destroyed in the scribe^s original, so that he
had to restore from another text — a text of A or of Y type. Now if the scribe
of SU 3+4 can have consulted a text of Y type along with the one he used as
basis for his copy, it seems almost certain that he got his Eu(g)-Baba correc-
tion from there; for S — the only Y text which preserves this section — has the
variant which places Ku(g)-Baba just before her son.
This Y influence upon SU 3+4 we may express in our diagram by means of
an arrow. As it is not the only possibility, however, we must draw the arrow
in dotted line.
INFLUENCE FBOM THE Y GEOUP ON SUi, SU'i^ AND Li
The case just mentioned where we found evidence of influence from texts
of one group upon those of another is not the only one of its kind. We have
already earlier (p. 51) suggested that the inexplicable lugal-me-lam
which Sui gives as the name of a ruler in the 4th dynasty of Uruk may be a
restoration from a text of Y type in which a broken formula for dynasty
total, [x] 1 u g a 1 - - n e . . . . , was read as lugal-me-lam and
considered a proper name. Since both Sui and SU 3+4 thus show influence
from a Y text, it seems reasonable to assume that our third Susa version also,
Sua, where we can observe foreign influence in the lines (iii 4-5) giving m u
X instead of the normal x m u , has been restored with the help of this Y text.
As a last case we may mention Li, which in viii 4-7 and 20-21 suddenly
changes from its usual formula for introducing single rulers, N. x mu i - as ,
TmXTVAh PBOBIiSMS
tO' N.' 'X IB-II ,i n - . ,We must assume here again tliat the passages in ques-
tion were damaged in the original which, the. copyist used as Ins basis firicl
that he restored them from a second text to' which he had aca*ess^ a I exi, whi(*!i -
as is shown 'by the variant i n - as— must have been of Y type.-*'^
With Yhe variants, of limited scope investigated above we have considered
all the variants in. the postdiluvian sections of the King List which can con-
tribute toward the reconstruction of the genealogical table, namely the vari-
ants which can be traced over at least four rnaiiuscripts. Since the discussion
of the problems connected with the antediluvian part of the list needs a sec-
tion by itself, we may add the results thus far achievf^d to our diagram:
The Antediluvian Section
Four of our manuscripts — P2, P3, P4, and Sui — contain evidence showing
that they began their accounts with the 1 st dynasty of Kish, that is, with
the first of the postdiluvian dynasties/^® Seven others — Pe, Li, L2, S, Sus,
There is some reason to separate the case of Y influence which we find in Sui, 8112 ^
and SU 3+4 from that of Li. For since Sui, Suz, and Sus+i have the same provenience, Susa,
and we can hardly assume that imported Baf^ylonian copies of the Sumerian King List
were abundant there (cf. p. 25), it seems likely that it is the same Y text which has in-
fluenced all our Susa versions. This Y text was no doubt so damaged that it could not l)e
used as a basis for later copies, but it was useful as a help in filling in gaps where the better
preserved texts were damaged. We have therefore used two arrows in the diagram, one for
the Y influence in Li and one for the Y influence in the Susa texts.
The evidence is as follows:
P 2 . The summary in coi. xii gives only 11 cities of royalty, which agrees with a list be-
ginning with Kish I. Furthermore, the section missing at the top of the tablet can be estimat-
ed fairly accurately. CoL i ends with Tizkar, and coi. ii begins — after the laciina—with
the formula for change of dynasty referring to the change from Kish I to TJruk L This
lacuna corresponds to 15 lines in WB. In col. i of P 2 the line following Kalibum^s regnal
years stands opposite the first line preserved in coL ii. Counting 15 lines backward from
56
The Sitmhriah King TisT' ' ' .
Sus+ 4 y and J — are too fragmentary to allow any conclusions as to where they
began. Three — WB, K, and P 5 — seem to have had an initial section dealing
with antediluvian rulers. This antediluvian section is preserved completely
in WB. In K traces of a whole column of rulers before the 1st dynasty of Kish
show that this text also must have listed antediluvian rulers.^^^ Ps, a fragment
which constitutes the lower left-hand corner of a large tablet, begins with the
1st dynasty of Kish, but this dynasty could not appear so far down on the
tablet if it was not originally preceded by an antediluvian section.^®^ We thus
have
with antediluvian section WB, Ps, K;
without antediluvian section P 2 , Ps, P 4 , Sui;
indefinite Pe, Li, L 2 , S, Su 2 , Su 3 -f 4 , J.
There are obviously two possible ways in which this variant and its distri-
bution may have come about: (1) If we assume that the antediluvian section
is an original constituent of the King List, its absence in P 2 , P3, P4, and Sui
must be due to omissions in these versions or — more likely — to omission in a
common ancestor. ( 2 ) If we assume that the antediluvian section is second-
this place in WB we arrive ati41: nam-lugal an-ta en-de-a-ba, which fol-
lows the record of the Deluge. Thus P 2 began with Kish I and had no antediluvian rulers.
P 4 . This text likewise counts 11 cities of royalty and accordingly cannot have had any
antediluvian rulers.
P 3 . Col, i ends with a lacuna after Etana, and col, ii begins after a lacuna with the note
on En-me(n)-barage-si. To the missing passages correspond 18 lines in WB. The lacuna
at the top of col. i, which goes to [Kalibu]m, one line lower than the first line preserved in
col. ii, can therefore at most have amounted to 19 WB lines; probably it was somewhat
less. Counting 19 lines back from Kalibum in WB takes us to the end of the antediluvian
kings (i 35), the dynasty total for Shuruppak. In P 3 also there is thus no room for a list of
antediluvian rulers.
Sui. Col. i ends with Samug before a lacuna. Col. ii begins with the years of En-me(r)-
kar. The missing portion corresponds to 29 lines in WB. Opposite the first line in col. ii is
Zuqaqip in col. i; but, since the position of Atab and Atabba is different in WB as com-
pared with Sui, it is better to count from Arwi^'um, who stands opposite the years of Lugal-
banda. The lacuna is then 31 WB lines. Counting back 31 lines from Arwi^um in WB takes
us only to the end of the dynasty of Sippar (WB i 30). Thus even if col. i in Siu had ended
at Samug, so that all that is missing had to be restored at the top of the tablet, we would
not have room enough for the antediluvian section. This text also must accordingly have
started with Kish I,
This conclusion was drawn already by King, Legends of Babylon and Egypt^ p. 31, n. 4
See the drawing of the fragment in PBS V, PL IV, and photograph in BE XX 1,
PL XV. Considering that the tablet originally had two columns on each side, making it
twice as broad as the fragment which is left, we must, to get reasonable dimensions, suppose
that it was at least twice as high as the fragment.
TeXTUAIt ^ PSOBEEMS 57
a later addition to the' King List, its occurrenec in WB, 1% and f\ mmi
be due to independent insertion in WB and in Ps, from which K would ihm
inherit it; for, since any common. ancestor of WB and roust also have bf‘C‘n
an. ancestor of Pa, Ps, and Sui, WB and P5' cannot have inherited the section
from such a text.
Neither of the two main possibilities here mentioned seems a priori more
probable than the other. As for the first we may, it is true, doubt tliat any
scribe would voluntarily omit a section which ^‘handed down the tradition
relating to (things) prediluvian.’'^^'^ Such precious information is not willingly
left But the omission need not have been voluntary. Clay is brittle
writing material, and a copyist may very well have found this section so seri-
ously damaged in his original that he had no choice but to begin his copy with
the postdiluvian rulers. As for the second possibility, that the antediluvian
section is secondary, it is obvious that the exceptional interest of the section
would strongly favor its insertion. Any copyist who did not find the antedilu-
vian rulers mentioned in his original of the King List but knew of them from
elsewhere must have felt a natural impulse to round off his aecoimt of bygone
dynasties by adding .such important information to his copy.
Since both possibilities thus seem equally probable, we must examine the
antediluvian section itself more closely to see if it contains any clues which
will decide the question. The first thing to be noted is the curious and signif-
icant independence which characterizes this section in contrast to all the rest
of the list. The other sections are true parts of the King List, do not appear
outside it, and have existence as parts of that composition only. Not so with
the tradition concerning the antediluvian rulers. This part has an individuality
of its own; it is not tied to the King List but can be found in the literature of
This seems to be the view of King, who was aware of the existence of this section in K
and of its absence in some of the Nippur fragments. He does not discuss the question in
detail, but his opinion may be inferred from his suggestion that *%he exclusion of the Antedi-
luvian period from the list may perhaps be explained on the assumption that its compiler
confined his record to kingdoms,' and that the mythical rulers who preceded them did not
form a kingdom' within his definition of the term" (loc, cit,). Note, however, that the form
which the antediluvian section takes in WB speaks of the ^kingdoms" of the various ante-
diluvian cities.
E. Campbell Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamish. A Neio Trandation .... (London,
1928) p. 9 i 6.
The keen interest which the ancients took in antediluvian matters may be seen from
the line of the Gilgames epic just quoted. Cf. also Ashurbanipal’s occupation with reading
‘‘stones from the time before the Deluge" (M, Streck, Amirhmiipal II [“Vorderasiatisehe
Bibliothek" VII 2 (Leipzig, 3916)] 256:18; D. D. Luckenbill, Anderd Records of Assyria
arid Babylonia II [Chicago, 1927] § 986).
58
The Shmeriah Kino List
the period as a separate entity or even as part of a composition other than the
King List. As a separate entity the antediluvian tradition appears on Tablet
W-B 62, published by Langdon.^®® This tablet gives the list of antediluvian
kings very much as does WB, but it is there unconnected with lists of other
rulers and has individual features which show that it is not merely a section
of the King List gone astray. Chief among these is a complete absence of
the formulas so characteristic of the King List proper.
Of still greater interest is it to find our tradition as part of another literary
composition. As No. 1 of his Historical and Grammatical Texts^^^ Toehel has
published a Sumerian epic which deals with the beginning of the world, and
there can be no doubt that a very close connection exists between this epic
and the antediluvian tradition as we have it in WB. The epic^®^ describes in
the first column the creation of men and animals; then, after a lacuna, col. ii
proceeds to relate the descent of kingship from heaven:
[m e] n n a m - 1 u g a 1 - 1 a a n - 1 a en - d [d, (?)] - a - b a
i b i r u - z a^ n a m - 1 u g a 1 - 1 a a n - 1 a 011 - a - b a
^Vhen the crown of kingship was lowered from heaven,
when the scepter and the throne of kingship were lowered from heaven,^'
and the founding of five cities, which are mentioned in the order Eridu(g),
Bad-tibira(k), Larak, Sippar, Shuruppak. After a new lacuna col. iii begins
the story of the Deluge, which, interrupted by lacunas, continues through
cols. iiHv. The end of the Deluge is related in col. v in the following words:
a-ma«ru u-gu kab-dug 4 “ga ba-an-da-ab-ur-e
U 4 7 - a m. g ie 7 - ^ m
a-ma-ru kalam-ma ba-ur-ra-ta
^^OECT II, PL VI, and JRAS, 1923, p. 256. See also Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. HI
(1924) 20, who dates the tablet correctly to the end of the 3d millennium b.c. and shows
convincingly that it is written in Sumerian.
The reigns of the kings listed differ considerably in length from those given by the
antediluvian section of WB; WB gives only XJbar-Tutu(k) as ruler of Shuruppak, whereas
W“B 62 has Shuruppak (-gi) and Zi-u-sud-ra; W-B 62 has an antediluvian dynasty of Larsa
which WB does not give; Eridu(g) of WB appears as Ku^a(ra) in W-B 62; etc. See also
S. Smith, EEA, pp. 20 f., who similarly stresses the independence of W-B 62: “The scribe of
the second list did not therefore take the first list and wilfully alter it, simply to glorify his
own city”; but cf. our reservations to details in Smithes view stated below, p. 71, n. 17.
Cf. PoebeLs translation and commentary in PBS IV 1, pp. 9-70, and King’s discus-
sion of the text in Legends of Babylon and Egyptf pp. 41-101.
There is no necessity to render a n - 1 a as “from Anu,” as Deimel proposes in Orien-
ialia No. 17 (1925) p. 35, instead of “from heaven.”
TeXTVAIu Peoblems
59
::''T!ie Deluge sweeps st the'same tiroe over tlie . * .
After the Deluge had swept over the land
for seven days and seveii nights/^^
and the .: tablet ... ends with .the ''tale: of Zi-u-sud-ra's sacrifiees and how lie was
made, immortal ■ ,
The close relation of this account to that of WB is obvious. WB begins
with the phrase
[namj-lugal an-ta . eu-dd-a-b a.
^Vhen the kingship was iom^ered from heaven/^
goes on to describe the' antediluvian dynasties in the order,'Erid.u(g), Bad-
tibira(k), Larak, Sippar, Shuruppak, and ends:
a - rn a - r u b a ~ ii r ea
egir a-ma^ru ba-ur-ra-ta
^The Deluge swept.
After the Deluge had swept.”
As will be seen, tlie ideas in these two texts — (1) the kingship being low^ered
from heaven (WB : [n a m] - 1 u g a 1 a n - 1 a Cn - d e - a - b a ; PBS V, No.
1; [ ] nam-lugal-la an-ta eii-d[e(?)]~a-ba), (2) the identi-
cal order of the primeval cities, and (3) the raging of the Deluge (WB:
a-ma-ru ba-ur; PBS V, No. 1: a-ma-ru.,..ba-an-da-
a b - u r - e) — are very much the same, follow in the same succession, and
are expressed in almost identical language.
That the tradition concerning the antediluvian rulers can thus be shown to
exist as a separate entity outside the King List, appearing either by itself or
The word kab-dug^-ga is still not certainly explained. Poebel (PBS 1¥ 1,
p. 41) thinks it is an epithet of the Deluge-demon and in ii 21 translates it as d<‘noting the
gods to whom the antediluvian cities were assigned. Poel>ei is followed by King, who (Dif/-
ends of Babylon and Egypt^ pp. 58 f.) tentatively translates ‘^divine rulers.” Deimel (loc.
cit.) translates ^Kultort”; and this rendering, which suits the context jxirfectly, is probably
correct, even though Deimel’s reasons for it, “k a b - d d (g) - k a + u (arch. 1c a bb
-ikribu, kardbu” carry little conviction.
The signs ra ta here are obviously dittography from ba-hr-ra-ta in the next line.
The close correspondence in w'ording indicates that we are dealing with literary de-
pendency and not with different records of a common oral tradition. It is true that the epic
in its present dilapidated condition does not contain a passage giving the exact information
which we should expect on that assumption. It has names and order of the cities but lacks
names, order, and reigns of the antediluvian rulers. That a passage containing this informa-
tion once stood in the large lacuna covering the upper half or more of col. hi is, however,
highly probable. Col. ii ends with the allotment of the antediluvian cities. Where, after the
lacuna, the preserved part of coL iii takes up the narrative, Eniil has decided to send a
Deluge, and the gods are troubled. Of the passage which once bridged this gap we must
therefore expect that it continued the subject begun in coL ii, telling who ruled these ante-
diluvian cities, and then gave the reasons for Enlils decision to wipe out mankind with the
60
The: Sumerian ■■KinG: List
a,s part of an epic, naturally raises the question of where its original setting
should be sought. The answer is not difficult to find. In the epic the god Euki
plays a most conspicuous role. He is mentioned with Enlil and Ninhursag
as creator of mankind, and he is indisputably the hero of the following Deluge
story, for it is through his activity alone that mankind is saved. We can
therefore .safely conclude that the epic hails from Eridu(g), the chief city of
Enki, and draws on its mythical lore. Toward Eridu(g) points also the tradi-
tion of the antediluvian rulers as we have it both in WB and in the epic, for
in both versions Eridu(g) is given the place of honor at the top of the list as
the foremost antediluvian royal city.^^^ The tradition therefore fits into the
epic hand-in-glove, and we cannot doubt that its original setting should be
sought in the lore of Eridu(g) and not in the King List.
We have thus found that the original setting of the antediluvian tradition
Deluge. And such a passage actually exists. Dr. Geers has discovered in the British Museum
a fragment of Assyrian date (K 11624) which, like our conjectural passage, begins with
an account of the antediluvian cities, rulers, and reigns and then goes on with lines of an
epic nature apparently dealing with the reasons that made Enlil send the Deluge. (The
lines mention Enlil and ^.uhuru^ ^^noise,” recalling the similar passage in the Atar-hasis
story, ingeniously restored by Sidney Smith [RA XXII (1925) 67 f.], which states that it
was the noise Hiuburu] of the humans that kept Enlil awake and made him send the Deluge
to restore peace and quiet.) These lines, with which the fragment breaks off, lead up to ex-
actly the situation found where eol. hi of PBS V, No. 1, is preserved: Enlil has decided to
send the Deluge, but his decision is as yet known only to the gods. In view of the exceptional
ease with which the fragment thus fits into the gap in the narrative of PBS V, No. 1, it
seems indeed more than likely that it represents a late version with interlinear translation
of this very epic. Since the gap in epic V, No. 1, may thus plausibly be restored from
the fragment and since the fragment contains the very information wanted, there is no
reason to doubt the existence of literary dependency between the epic and the King List
(WB). What form this dependency may have taken is discussed below (p. 64, n. 119).
Dr. Geers has kindly permitted me to publish a drawing from his copy of K 11624 (see
plate at end). We give here a transliteration and translation:
Sippar, its period of reign was altered.
In Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k),
1 king, period of reign 36,000 years.
Larak, its period of reign was altered.
In Shuruppak Ubar-Tutu(k),
Zi-u-sud-i’a, son of Ubar-Tutu(k),
2 kings, period of reign . . years.
Five separate cities, 9 kings
Enlil
fsipp ar^^Mbala-bi ba-an-kdr]
1 a? - r ^ - a k - e [n “ s i p a - z i - a n - n a]
1 lugal-e bala 3[6,000 m u]
la 7 -rA-ak-a^‘bala-b[i ba-an-kdr]
LAM-f KXJR-EU^^ ubur-t[U“tu]
zi-U 4 -sud-ra dumu u[b u r - 1 u - 1 u]
2“^mlugal-e-nebala[. .mu]
5 uru-dil-dili 91ugal-re'*-[ne....]
‘*en-Hl-le nam-[ . . . .]
^en~lil m-[. . . .]
k:a4-li-k:a+li i b - [. . . .]
(?)]
We have included the evidence of the text quoted above — designated as ^^epic fragment
K 11624^’ — ^in the notes to the text of WB, where the discussion of details will be found.
That this position was indeed a desirable one may be seen, e.g., from the fact that
later Babylonian tradition, which has been preserved by Berossus, places Babylon there.
the (Akkadian: '^their”?) noise .
Textual Pboblems
61
does not seem to be the King List and that this tradition exists as part of an-
other literary composition and as a separate entity in the Sumerian literal, lire
of the Isin-Larsa period. The scribes who wrote our copies of the King List
must therefore have had ample opportunity to know this tradition even if it
did not appear in their originals. All this agrees perfectly with our second
possibility, that the antediluvian section is secondary in the King List. It
proves that all conditions for the making of such an addition were extant at
the Isin-Larsa period. It is not enough, however, to exclude the first possi-
bility, that the antediluvian section is original, for it is clear that traces of an
earlier setting such as we have found would remain if the author himself had
taken this section of his work from a tale from Eridu(g) ; and the tale in which
the tradition originally belonged could live on along with the King List down
to the Isin-Larsa period.
The peculiarities of the antediluvian section mentioned thus far, its inde-
pendence and its partiality to Eridu(g), are not, however, the only features
which set it apart from other sections of the list. It has a peculiar set of formu-
las. Since we have it fully preserved only in WB, we must study these pecu-
liarities there.
As will be remembered, the formulas characteristic of the main body of
WB, the postdiluvian section, are:
Formula for change of dynasty:
Aki ukui ba-an-sig nam-lugal-bi ba-tiim
^The city A was smitten with weapons; its kingship was carried to the city B.’’
Formula for dynasty total:
xlugalmu«bi y lb - as (if the dynasty has only one king; i - as)
“a: kings reigned its (the city^s) y years.”
Formula for introducing single rulers:
N- mu X i-Es
‘*N. reigned x years.”
In the antediluvian section, however, the formulas are:
Formula for change of dynasty:
A^^ ba-sub-b4-en nam-lugal-bi - ba-td
(the author!) drop the city A;^^® its kingship was carried to the city B.”
The passages where the formula occurs are: i 8-10 ; erida*^* ba-§ub(-b6“
en) nam-iugal-bi b^d-tibira^*-§^ ba-tiim; i 18-19: b S, d-t i b i r
ba-§ub-b4-en nam-iugal-bi Ia-ra-ak^*(-§d) ba-tdm; i 24-25:
ia-ra-ak^^ ba-Sub-b6-en nam-lugal-bi zimbi - ba-tUm;
i 30-31 : zimbi r^^ ba-§ub-b6-en nam-iugal-bi §uruppak^*(-Sd)
ba-t U m .
I.e., 'T drop the subject of A (and proceed to deal with another subject).'' The author
himself is speaking. The Sumerian §ub, M,” transitive ^^to drop," can be used In
62
The Shmerian Kino List
Formula for dynasty total:
X 1 u g a 1 m u - b i y 1 b - as (even if the dynasty has only one king!)^^^
kings reigned its y years.”
Formula for introducing single rulers:
IST. m u X as^^®
reigned x years.”
It will be noted that these sets of formulas differ on two points. In the
antediluvian section the formula for change of dynasty begins: “I (the au-
thor) drop the city A”; in the postdiluvian section the formula begins: ^^The
city A was smitten with weapons.” In the antediluvian section the collective
form of the verb, fb-as, is used in every total; in the postdiluvian sec-
tion i b - as is used only in totals of dynasties with several rulers, whereas
if the dynasty has but one ruler the singular i - as is employed. These dif-
ferences are important. The whole King List bears witness that its author
the meaning leave, ^'not to occupy oneself with a thing any longer, exactly like “to
drop (a subject)” in English. On § u b , “to leave,” cf. the equation § u b : ezehu in SLy
No, 68:3; also such passages as SRT, No. 3 iii 12-13: h-mu-ni-kti h-mu-ni-
nag-fga^“ta i nfg-diri-ga ga-mu-na-ra-ab-sub, “Excess of oil be-
yond what he can eat and drink I shall let be left over (-r a-) for him,” i.e,, “I shall
serve him more oil than he can drink, so that some will be left” (- r a - is the disjunctive
verbal infix; our passage shows that — contrary to GSG § 513 — this infix follows the da-
tive infix, just as do other directional infixes; cf. also H. de Genouillac, Textes economiques
d’Oumma de Vepoque d^Our [Paris. Musee national du Louvre, “Textes cuneiformes” V
(Paris, 1922)] No. 6167 rev. 3: mu-ne-ra-e, “came forth for them,” and No. 6164
rev. 4: mu-na-ra-ne-5-es, “came forth for him”) ; SEM, No. 49 obv. 5 :
‘igasananna ^an mu-un‘*-sub ^ki mu-un-Sub”' kur-ra b[a-e-a-eu]y
“Gashananna(k) left heaven, left earth, and descended to Hades” (cf. now also S. N. Kramer
in RA XXXIV [1937] 98: “she forsook”). Langdon’s translation of the formula in DECT
II 8 f. (accepted by Smith, EH A, p. 23, and Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 22), “(the city A)
was overthrown,” is excluded by the form of the verb, ba-§ubb-en, which must be
first or second person and cannot be third.
The passages in which this formula occurs are: i6-7: 2 lugal mu(-bi) 64,800
i b - as ; i 16--17 :31ugal mu-bi 108,000 i b - as ; i 22-23 :llugal mu-bi 28,800
i b - as ; i 28-29: 1 lugal mu-bi 21,000 1 b - as ; i 34r-35 :1 lugal mu-bi 18,600
i b - as ,
The formula occurs in i 5: 4 - H 1 - g a r mu 36,000 1 - as; i 13-14: e n - m e -
en-gal-an-na mu 28,800 i-as; i 15: ‘^dumu-zi si pa m u 36,000 i-as.
The related formula for introducing new dynasties, - a N. 1 u g a 1 - k m m u x i - as ,
is used carelessly: i 3-4: erida^b£-lu-lim lugal (!) mu 28,800 i-as; i 11-12:
b^d-tibira^* en-me-en-lfi-an-na(!) mu 43,200 i-as) i 20-21: la-ra-
ak^* en(I)-sipa-zi-an-na(!) mu 28,800 i-as; i 26-27: zimbir^‘ en-me-
en-dtir-an-na lugal-£Lm mu 21,000 i - as ; i 32-33: Suruppak^^ ubur-
tfi-tfi lugal-lim mu 18,600 i - as . See pp. 67 f ., where the significance of the variants
in this formula is discussed.
Textual Peoblems
63
was a man who was fond of formnlas and used them with singular precision
and consistency. It is inconceivable that a man of this type should have made
the purposeless and totally unnecessary change from 'T drop the city to
‘The city A was smitten with weapons'' which we find in the formula for
change of dynasty. People with precise minds do not start before they have
the exact formula to be used clearly in mind, and then they stick to it. They
do not arbitrarily reject it when they get halfway, to evolve a different one.
The existence of this change therefore points to a different hand ; a later copy-
ist is trying in the antediluvian section to adapt a source with different phrase-
ology (“I drop the city A and proceed to deal with the city B") to that used
in the King List (“The city A was smitten with weapons; its kingship was
carried to the city B").
But the final and irrefutable proof that the antediluvian section is not of a
piece with the postdiluvian is furnished by the other difference in the formulas,
the varying use of the collective. In the postdiluvian parts of the King List
the collective f b - as is, as mentioned above, used only in totals of dynasties
numbering several rulers, whereas we find the singular i-as in dynasties
with only one king. This section must therefore have been written by a man
who understood the difference between i b - as and i - as and used the two
forms correctly. In the antediluvian section, however, the collective f b -
is used in every total, even when the dynasty has only one king. This sec-
tion cannot, therefore, have been written by the same man who wrote the
postdiluvian section but must have been composed later when the collective
was no longer in living use and by a man who did not know what it stood for.
It is also clear how this later writer arrived at the peculiar rules which govern
his use of the form. Cases of dynasties with only one ruler are rare in the post-
diluvian section; so a cursory inspection of his original would seem to him to
show that, while i - as should be used in the formula for introducing single
rulers, the form i b - as which he did not understand, was characteristic
for the totals. Faced with the task of adding the material on antediluvian
rulers which he had found in another source and of adapting its phraseology
to that of the King List, he therefore used his self-made rule and wrote
1 b - as in all his totals. It was, however, only in the new section which he
added, the antediluvian section, that he had to bother thus with grammatical
details. When he came to the postdiluvian section he could settle down to
merely reproducing his original sign by sign. Thus his self-made rule did not
disturb the old correct use of the two forms which appeared there.
The role of the antediluvian section in the tradition of the King List can
thus no longer be doubtful; it is a later addition. We have seen that it most
64
The Sumerian King List
likely originated in Eridu(g), that it was current in various settings in Su-
merian literature at the time when most of our copies of the King List were
written, and that it must have seemed valuable and desirable information to
the ancients. We have found also that the form in which it appears in WB
shows unmistakable signs that it was written later by a person different from
the one who composed the postdiluvian section of the list. This means that
the original form of WB, without the antediluvian section, agrees with the
manuscripts P2, P3, and Sui which belong to the other main branch of the
tradition, the B branch. Since the form without the antediluvian section is
thus represented in both main branches, it must have been that of the origi-
nal.
It is of interest to determine as accurately as possible the extent of the antediluvian
addition and to distinguish between those parts of it which come from the source used by
the scribe and those which he himself added to fit it into its new setting.
To material which the scribe must have got from his source obviously belong the actual
names and reigns given. As for the formulas, it is clear that the first part of the formula
leading from one dynasty to another must have been taken over from the source, for there
must have been a reason why the scribe did not simply use the formula as given in the
King List proper, A^^«^®tukul ba-an-sig nam-lugal-bi B^^-se ba-tfim,
but substituted A^‘ ba-sub-b6-en for A^* ukul ba-an-sig. This rea^son
can only be that he found A^^ ba-sub-b6-en in his source for the antediluvian sec-
tion. Since the formula A^^ ba-§ub-b^-en, drop (the subject) A,'' calls for the
mentioning of a new subject, B, immediately afterward, we can conclude that the source
for the antediluvian section, like the King List proper, introduced new dynasties by men-
tioning the name of their city. But it is unlikely that it also had 1 u g a 1 - ^ m after the
name of the first ruler, for in the antediluvian section our scribe has the greatest difficulty
in remembering to use this 1 u g a 1 - ^ m and forgets it completely both in i 11-12 and in
i 20-21. Whether the source for the antediluvian section used a verb “he reigned” after
the various reigns and whether it totaled up the reigns and dynasties is impossible to decide.
As we have mentioned above (p. 59, n. 113), there exists between the antediluvian sec-
tion of WB and the epic PBS V, No. 1, a similarity of phraseology so striking that we must
assume literary interdependence between the two texts. The fact that the antediluvian tra-
dition seems at home in the epic (pp. 58-60) but appears in only a few copies of the King List
as a late secondary addition makes it highly unlikely that the epic obtained its material
from the King List. On the other hand we cannot assume that the scribe who inserted this
section in WB took it directly from the epic. We have seen that his source used a formula
“I drop the city A”; and such a formula is unthinkable in an epic, where the author cannot
suddenly commence speaking in the first person. The source was therefore more likely a
separate, self-contained version of the tradition, a list of the type represented by W-B 62,
where such a formula would fit in well. This leaves us three possible ways to explain the
relationship: (I) If we may assume that the names and reigns of the antediluvian kings were
given in the lacuna covering the upper half of coL iii in PBS V, No, 1 (see p. 59, n. 113),
the separate list used as source by WB may have been excerpted from this epic. (2) The
epic may have used the same separate list which WB used. (3) The epic and the separate
hst used by WB may both derive from a third, as yet unknown, literary composition and
may have inherited their common material and phraseology from there. Now it is clear that,
whichever of these possibilities is correct, the existence of a close literary relationship be-
TEXTUAIi PbOBEEMS
65
It remains to examine the question when in the tradition of our manuscripts
the insertion of the antediluvian section may have been made* In the texts of
tween the epic and the source used by WB forms a valuable clue for separating those phrases
in the antediluvian section of WB which the scribe has taken over from his source from those
he himself added to fit the section in. If the source of WB and the epic are closely related,
it is obvious that phrases which appear in both WB and the epic are likely not to be inven-
tions by the scribe but to come from the source. Comparing, then, the phrases which intro-
duce and close the antediluvian section in WB with those of the epic V, No. 1,
[nam]-lugal an-ta en-d^-a-ba
erida^^ nam-lugal-la
(antediluvian cities and kings)
a-ma-ruba-fir
egir a-ma-ru ba-ilr-ra-ta
nam-lugal an-ta en-d^-a-ba
ki§i^^ nam-lugal-la,
[m e] n nam-lugal-la an-ta en-
d[^{?)]-a-ba
i b i r e^i'gu-z ab nam-lugal-ia
an-ta en-a-ba
(antediluvian cities)
a-ma-ru u-gfii kab-dug 4 -ga ba-
a n - d a - a b - fi r - e
U 4 7 - A m g ie 7 - ^ m
a-ma-ru kalam-ma ba-ur-ra-ta
we notice that the phrases nam-lugal an-ta eu-d^-a-ba and a-ma-ru
b a - fi r both have close parallels in the epic and accordingly can be considered part of
the source for the antediluvian section, whereas the phrase erida^^ nam-lugal-la
does not have any counterpart.
Leaving aside for the moment the third correspondence, between egir a-ma-r u
ba-fir-ra-ta and a-ma-ru. ... ba-fir-ra-ta and utilizing what must have
formed part of the source — ^names of kings, reigns, the formula ba-§ub-b6-en,
etc. — we can reconstruct the source as follows:
nam-lugal an-ta en - d e - a - b a
erida^* d-lu-lim m u 28,800
d-lai-gar mu 36,000
e r i d b a - § u b -r b ^ - e n
bad-tibira^* en-me-en-lii-an-na m u 43,200
etc.
a-ma-ru b a - fi r
^‘When the kingship was lowered from heaven:
(In) Eridu(g): A-lulim(ak), 2vS, 800 years
Alalgar, 36,000 years
I drop Eridu(g).
(In) Bad-tibira(k) : En-men-lu-Anna(k), 43,200 years
etc.
The Deluge swept in.^^
There are in this reconstruction several points worth noticing. First its abrupt, almost
account-like, form agrees with our assumption that the source for the antediluvian section
66
The Sumerian King List
the B branch we can do little more than make a guess. The two which show
traces of the insertion, P5 and K, both belong to the small group of manuscripts
deriving from Y. Only one other text, S, belongs to that group, and S also—
it is too fragmentary to give safe indications— may have had the antediluvian
section. Since two of the texts in the group have the antediluvian section and
the third may have had it, it seems a likely assumption that the insertion of
the section was originally made in their common ancestor, Y, and inherited
by the others. This assumption is the more probable because the scribe who
wrote Y must be considered a person especially likely to have searched for
and utilized additional material. We know that this scribe subjected his text
of WB was of a type similar to W-B 62. Such a form, introduced by short catchwords culled
from the surrounding text, is also what we should expect to find in a concentrated excerpt
from a longer literary composition.
Of most interest, however, is the fact that the author of this document apparently has
no intent whatever to present the dynasties as successive. He defines his period by an upper
limit: “When the kingship was low’ered from heaven,^’ and a lower: “The Deluge swept in”;
but his phrase “I drop the city A. In the city B . . . . ” does not imply that the dynasty
of B followed that of A in time; rather it seems chosen to avoid giving this impression. This
view, that the antediluvian dynasties were more or less contemporaneous, is clearly incom-
patible with the King List proper, which directly aims at following the route of “the king-
ship” from one city to another. If the two sources were to be harmonized it was therefore
necessary to supplement the vague framework of the antediluvian section, to establish where
the kingship was when it was sent down from heaven, and then to follow it in its vagaries on
earth. That the scribe who incorporated the section in WB realized this we may see from
the phrase erida^* nam-lugal-la, “the kingship (was) in Eridu(g),” which has
no counterpart in the epic and therefore is likely to have been added by the scribe himself.
That this line does not come from his source is also indicated by the late form used here,
nam-lugall-a, in contrast to nam-lugal in the line which he copied from the
original: nam-lugal an-ta en-de-a-ba (cf. pp. 67 f.).
It remains to discuss the lines egir a-ma-ru ba-ur-ra-ta nam-lugal
an-ta en-d^-a-ba ki§i^* nam-lugal-la which form the actual link between
the antediluvian and postdiluvian sections. The only new thing which these lines bring is
the preposition e g i r . . . . t a , “after”; otherwise they are a mere repetition of the for-
mulas used higher up in the section. Since these lines would be completely out of place
in a separate list of antediluvian rulers but are eminently suitable to link an antediluvian
section to a postdiluvian and since, moreover, they contain the form nam-lugall-a
wliich is characteristic for the scribe^s own efforts (see above), we can hardly doubt that
they were written by the scribe himself on the basis of the earlier phrases to form the neces-
sary connecting link between the two sections which he was joining. No importance can
thus be attached to the similarity of egir a-ma-ru ba-hr-ra-ta in the lines
here discussed and the line a-ma-ru.. ..ba-hr-ra-ta in the epic. This simi-
larity is purely accidental and due to the reuse in WB of a phrase, a-ma-ru ba-hr,
common to both versions. The preposition, which is the only new thing in the phrase, is
expressed differently in the two texts: PBS V, No. 1, has .... a - 1 a ; WB, egir...,
a- ta . .
Textual Peoblems
67
of the King List to a thorough grammatical revision/^® and a man who took
so much trouble to improve the form of his copy would hardly be less interested
in improving and completing the content.
Clearer than in the B branch is the situation in the A branch; for the point
in WB's descent from the original at which the antediluvian section must have
been inserted can be determined with a fair degree of certainty from a grammat-
ical peculiarity common to the beginning and end of this version. The last
section in our manuscripts of the King List generally shows peculiarities of
some kind or other, for since the scribes as a rule copied from somewhat older
originals they had to add new material— names and reigns of one or more new
rulers— to bring their copies up to date. In these additions which the copyists
themselves composed their scribal habits are apt to show, so that we often
notice differences from the earlier parts of their copies, where they had merely
taken down the text of their originals sign by sign. A difference of this kind
in WB is the change in the formula for introducing new dynasties from A^K- a)
N. lu g a 1 - S, m , ^Tn A N. was king,^^ which is used in the main body of
the text, to A^“- a N. lugal(!) , ^Tn A N. (was!) king,'^ which appears
at the end: uri^'-ma ur-[%ammu] lugal(!) (viii 9) and i-si-
i n^^ - n a i s - b i - i r - r a 1 u g a 1 (!) (viii 23). As will be noted, the verb
^Vas^^ (- h m) is omitted in the latter form, and the name (Ur-Nammu(k),
Ishbi-Irra) is merely placed beside the substantive with which it is to be identi-
fied (1 u g a 1). This change in the formula at the very end of the text can
only be explained by assuming that the section in which the new construction
appears was added by a scribe who was bringing his copy of an older original
up to date and who was accustomed to using this construction without m.
The construction without -am is also found, however, in the antedilu-
vian section, where we have [e r i] d a^^ n a m - 1 u g a 1 - 1 a (!) , “(In) Eri-
du(g) (was !) the kingship” (i 2), and k i § i^' n a m - 1 u g a 1 - 1 a ( 1) ,
“In Kish (was!) the kingship” (i 42). Here the name (Eridu(g), Kish) is
merely placed beside the substantive (n a m - 1 u g a 1 1 - a) , exactly as in
the closing section of the list. It is further noteworthy that the copyist here
uses the form n a m - 1 u g a 1 1 - a which is characteristic for late texts,
whereas he uses nam-lugal in the formula for change of dynasty, A^^
b a - s u b - b ^ - e n n a m - 1 u g a 1 - b i B^' - § h b a - 1 u m , which he has
modeled on the formula in his source for the King List proper (A^' u k u 1
The changes from «“t ukulba-sig....to bala~bi ba-kiir....,
from i - as to i n - as , from ib-as to in-ak-e§, and from lugal to Iugal-e*ne
were made in this text.
^ 2 ^ GSG § 121 .
68
The Sumerian King List
ba-an-sig nam-lugal-bi ba-tiim), and of course
in the postdiluvian sections, where he merely copies that source.^^^ The con-
struction without - km occurs elsewhere in the antediluvian section also.
The first time the scribe uses the formula for introducing new dynasties (i 3)
he writes erida^' a-lu-lim lugal(!), ^^(In) Eridu(g) A-lulim(ak)
(was!) king,'^ which is exactly like u r - m a u r - [‘^n a m m u] I u g a 1 (!)
and i-si-in^'-na is-bi-ir-ra lugal(!)at the end of the list.
Then he completely forgets that there is a special formula with 1 u g a 1
for introducing new dynasties (i 11-12 and 20-21), clearly because his source
for the antediluvian section did not use it. When at last he discovers his for-
getfulness, he looks up the formula in his source for the postdiluvian section
and writes correctly zimbir^^ en-me-en-dfir-an-na lugal-
a m (i 26-27) and Suruppak^^ ubur-th-tu lugal-^m (i 32-33).
The tendency to omit - km which we notice in the antediluvian section
whenever the scribe is not copying from his original of the King List proper
and the similar omission of - ^ m in the additions at the end to bring the
list up to date show clearly that both sections were inserted by the same hand.
Since this hand has added the lines introducing the d3masty of Isin it must
obviously be dated later than the beginning of that dynasty. As a likely place
we may suggest the reign of Shu-ilishu, where traces in WB point to the end
of an earlier version. It will be noted that Shu-ilishu is written with the deter-
minative for divinity in line 25, which deals with his own reign, but not in
line 27, where he is mentioned as father of I(d)din-Dagan. This inconsistency
is most naturally explained if we assume that our text has descended through
a version written under Shu-ilishu and ending with him. In such a version
his name would be written with the determinative for divinity, for the scribe
would, of course, acknowledge the divinity of the ruling monarch. Since the
Shu-ilishu version stopped with that ruler, the following line, where he is
mentioned as father of I(d)din-Dagan, must be the work of a later scribe bring-
ing the Shu-ilishu copy up to date. Such a later scribe, writing after Shti-
ilishu^s reign, might naturally consider it unnecessary to give him the sign
of divinity.
Cf. also his use of n a m - 1 u g a 1 in the phrase n a m - lugal an-ta en-d^-
a - b a (i 1 and 41), which he probably took over as it stood from his source for the ante-
diluvian section, while he had to make up the line nam-lugal-la himself.
Ill
CRITICAL EDITION OF THE TEXT, WITH
TRANSLATION AND NOTES
As basic text that of WB, collated with photographs of the inscription, has been
chosen. Letters in the margin show in which mss, each line or traces of it are extant,
even if these traces amount to no more than a blank space indicating that the scribe
found the line destroyed in his original. For definite omission of a line in a ms. we have
inclosed the ms. symbol in angle brackets: <Su 2 >. When— as is the case with Po—
lines of the text can be supplied from a final summary, the symbol is added in parenthe-
ses: (P 2 ).
The numbering of the lines is based on the form of the text presented by WB (we
follow Langdon’s numbering of the lines in OECT II). In emendations supplying pas-
sages presumably lost by WB in the course of transmission the lines have been num-
bered with the number of the preceding WB line followed by letters in alphabetic order,
e.g. 41a, 416, 41c.
Portions of the text which presumably represent later additions are indicated by the
use of smaller type. Passages presumably contained in the original but lost in WB have
been supplied in angle brackets : < >. Emendations of the text of WB to a form which
must be considered closer to that of the original have been added in parentheses:
(emend to .... ). In cases where it is doubtful whether the text of WB or that of
other mss. is preferable, the variant has been added in parentheses: (var ) or
(or . . . .). All restorations and emendations based on readings found in other mss.
are printed in letter-spaced roman; for conjectural restorations italics have been used.
Only the more important variants are noted in the text; those of less importance will
be found in the notes, where the reasons for all emendations etc. are given in detail.
Variants in the formulas have been discussed on pp. 28-42 and are not reconsid-
ered here.
In quoting Sumerian and Akkadian words or names in English context, we have as a
general rule tried to give or to approximate toward the oldest form. Thus we prefer
Ubar-Tutu(k) to Ubur-Tutu(k), as the latter seems a later development. Similarly
we use Man-ishtushu in preference to Man-ishteshu etc. The grammatical form chosen
as basis for our English renderings of Sumerian words and names is the undeclined
stem. The amissible final consonants (sometimes syllables!), which were probably
indistinctly pronounced and which when Sumerian was a living language were not ex-
pressed in writing except before grammatical affixes beginning with a vowel, we have
usually inclosed in parentheses. In certain names, however, where forms based on
later explicit writings are already more or less current in English, e.g. Uruk, Shuruppak,
etc., we have retained those forms and have not added parentheses. Similarly we have
not considered it feasible to change well established forms such as Ur and Kish to
IFri(m) and Kishi. In Akkadian names we have allowed ourselves even more freedom,
giving the names sometimes with, sometimes without, case endings and mimation. In
our choice of form we have here largely been guided by the form found in the King List.
69
70
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
The SxJMEEiAN King List
CoLii
1 [n a m] - 1 u g a 1
[eri]da^^
e r i d ®
mu
5 ^-lal^gari®
m u <- b
a n - 1 a eu^ - dd-a-ba®
n a m " 1 u g a I - 1 a^
d - 1 u - 1 i m® 1 u g a L
28,800® i - as
m u 36,000^^ i - as
2 1 u g a i
64,800 1 b “ as
b a - § u b {-M~eny^
bad-tibira^^-s^
b a - 1 d
e r i d a^‘
nam-lugal-bi
bld-tibira^^^^en-me-en-ld-an-na^®
^ The antediluvian section (i 1-42) is not an original part of the King List but was added
later (see pp. 61-68). We have indicated in the notes the chief points on which the form it
takes in WB differs from that found in PBS V, No. 1, in W-B 62, in epic fragment K 11624
(see p. 59, n. 113), and in Berossus. The last is quoted from Paul Schnabers edition, Berossos
und die hahyhnisch-hellenisiische Literatur (Berlin, 1923) 2. Teil. The forms of the Greek
letters used in our efforts at reconstruction are patterned after the letters found in the Greek
transliterations of Sumero-Akkadian texts published by Pinches in Society of Biblical
Archaeology, Proceedings XXIV (1902) 108-19.
2 Thus according to photograph (cf. L 41, which has this same spelling), not ud-du as
in Langdon’s copy.
3 On the relation of this phrase to phrases in PBS Yy No. 1, see pp. 58-59 and 64, n. 119,
4 On the grammatical construction used here see pp. 67 f.
® PBS V, No. 1, agrees with WB on Eridu(g) as the first city. W'-B 62 has gA-A^', i.e.,
kus-a^^ (on this reading see n. 126 below), and Berossus has Babylon. The difference
must be due to a natural tendency in the narrator or scribe who was handing on the tra-
dition to locate the first kings in his own city (cf. pp. 59 f., esp. n. 114). Most likely the
tradition was original in Ku^a(ra) and was in early times adopted — and adapted — in
Eridu(g). These two cities were situated fairly near each other (see Poebei, PBS IV 1,
pp, 121 f.; Zimmern in ZA n.F. V [1930] 255, n. 1; Ungnad, Subartu, pp. 28-30). That they
were separate cities is rightly stressed by Landsberger (Der kuUische Kalender der Babylonier
und Assyrer, 1. Halfte [Leipzig, 1915] p. 73, n. 1), but the close connection in which they
occur in Sumerian literature suggests intimate cultural relations (cf. ibid, and Zimmern,
loc. ciL). Finally the tradition was appropriated by Babylon, as happened with so much
ancient lore in Neo-Babylonian times (see e.g. Langdon, DECT II 2; Zimmern in ZDMG
n.F, III [1924] 27). Sidney Smith (EH A, p. 19) suggests that the appropriation ^‘depends
on a New Babylonian reading of the actual cuneiform signs used by the scribe of list No. 1
[i.e., WB: nun^T which, when originally written, denoted Eridu"'; but this reading is of
course itself an outcome of the extensive appropriation of Eridu(g) lore, so it is not necessary
to assume that our substitution was dependent upon it.
® W-B 62: [d,] - 1 u li m (the second sign was identified by Langdon, OECT II 8, n. 1,
as a form of UECy No. 229, which varies with 1 u-li m) . Berossus: ’AXcopos, in which,
71
Ceitical Edition op the Text, Col. i 1-11
CoLi^
1 When the kingship was lowered from heaven
the kingship was in Eridu(g).
(In) Eridu(g) A4ulim(ak) (became) king
and reigned® 28,800 years;
5 Alalgar reigned 36,000 years.
2 kings
reigned its^^ 64,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Eridu(g)
its kingship to Bad4ibira(k)
10 was carried.
(In) Bad-tibira(k) En-men-lu«Anna(k)
as sometimes happens, Babylonian! is represented by Greek r (Zimmern in ZDMG n.F.
Ill 23, n. 1).
The name seems to mean “staghorn’’ (4-luiim-ak, “horn of the stag”). The
genitive is not expressed in writing, probably because we are dealing with a “historical”
orthography from the time before the Sumerians expressed grammatical elements in writing,
i.e., before the time of E-Anna(k)-tum. On 1 u 1 i m , “stag,” see Landsberger, Die Fauna
des alien Mesopotamien, pp. 98 f.
^ On the omission of - ^ m here see p. 68.
® W-B 62: 67,200; Berossus: 36,000. ® On this translation of i » as see p. 37, n. 85.
i®W-B62: [d]-ial~gar. Berossus: ’AXairapos, which may represent original
in w^hich rr was corrupted to rr. Langdon, OECT II 2, and Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill
23, n. 2, assumed Landsberger, quoted by Zimmern {he. cii.)y
suggests that 'AXaTrapos is correct and represents an erne- sal form Alabar; but the
usual erne- sal form of g a r is m a r , not bar.
i^W-B 62: 72,000; Berossus: 10,800.
^2 Accidentally omitted by scribe, who was not yet used to the formula; cf. II. 17, 23,
■29, e'tc, ' ■ ,, .. . ■ ' ■
I.e., Eridu(g)’s; see p. 37, n. 86.
Accidentally omitted by scribe, who was not yet used to the formula; cf. 11. 18, 24,
and 30.
See p. 61, n. 116, where the translation of this formula is discussed.
On the reading and translation of du see p. 36, n. 84.
Bad-tibira(k) is given as the second city in PBS V, No. 1, and in Berossus, where
the name appears as Pautibiblon (Alexander Polyhistor ap. Eusebium [var. Parmibiblon]
and Abydenus ap. Eusebium), as k UavTL^L^Xcop (Polyhist. ap. Syncellum), and as h Hai;-
rt^L^Xcav, var. k w6X€(a)s Havn^L^Xios (Abyd. ap. Sync.). W-B 62 has a dynasty of Larsa
[Footnote 17 continued on page 72]
W-B 62: [en~me]-en-lii-an-na. Berossus presumably had /n/ner at n ,
The extant forms are: Polyhist. ap. Euseb.: Almelon r'CUN <*h.t^r\€.r uin)^
ap. Sync.: ^Aijl^Xcov (*A.MK^5?^r-ca.N <*^/-\M£ratN); Abyd. ap. Euseb.: Amelon (derived in
[Footnote 18 continued on page 72]
72 The Stjmeeian King List
WB
12
mu
43,200^®
l-as
WB
e n - m e - e n
- g a 1 - a n - n
WB
m u
28,80021
•i'-.as
WB
15
‘^du m u - z i
s i p a22 m u
36,00023 l-as
WB
3 lu gal
WB
m u - b i
108,000
lb- as
WB
bad-tibira^‘ b a
- § u b - b 4 - e Ti
[Footnote 17 continued from page 71]
as second dynasty and that of Bad-tibira(k) as third. On the reading of b a d -ukudu-
NAGAR^^ as b a d - 1 i b i r see Ungnad in ZA XXXI (1917/18) 276 and Langdon mJRASy
1923, p. 258, n. 2. References to the city may be found in RLA 1 389 f. and in the literature
quoted there. The identity of Bad-tibira(k) and was noted by Langdon in
JRASf 1923, pp. 253 and 258, n. 2. Zimmern in ZDMG ti,¥, III 25, n. 1, suggests that an
original Ilaurt/Sipa became Uavn^i^a and then, under influence of ^i^'Kos, Haurt/StjSXa, while
Lehmann-Haupt in RLA II 5 prefers a slightly different derivation: dittography of and
‘^der bekannte lautliche Wandel von p zu
The dynasty of Larsa which W-B 62 inserts before the Bad-tibira(k) dynasty consists of
]-ki-du-run'’-nu §a kin kin mu 72,000
a] 1 i m - ^m a^ mu 21,600 ®[ ] T (?) - g a r
^[2] 1 u g a 1 1 a r s a^‘ - m a
. kidunnu .... 72,000 years;
.... -alimma(k) 21,600 years . . . . ;
2 kings of Larsa.”
The insertion of this dynasty must be considered due to local patriotism in a copyist who
wanted to see his own city, Larsa, represented among the antediluvian cities (thus also
Langdon, OECT II 3, and Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 27). Sidney Smith (EHA, pp. 20 f.)
stresses the many other differences between WB and W-B 62 and concludes: ‘The scribe
of the second list [i.e., W-B 62] did not therefore take the first list [i.e., WB] and wilfully
alter it, simply to glorify his own city; to all appearance he has recorded numbers, and prob-
ably names, based on authority which we have at present no reason to consider less than
that of the other list.” This objection is correct in so far as W-B 62 cannot be just the ante-
diluvian section of WB gone astray (see p. 58, n. 107) but must represent a separate branch
of the (literary!) tradition concerning the antediluvian kings. It cannot, however, weaken
the case for considering the Larsa dynasty of W-B 62 a secondary insertion made by a
scribe from that city.
The name of the second of these Larsa kings is usually read [ ] - u k (?) - k u (?) (thus
Langdon, OECT II 2, and Zimmern, op. ciL p. 20); but the last sign is clearly - m a (see
Langdon^s copy, OECT II, PL VI), and the first sign can be part of a 1 i m . A restora-
tion [l^l-fir-a]lim-ma is therefore perhaps worth considering. From Ludlid Ml
nimeqi we know Lal-ur-alimma(k) as an ancient ruler of Nippur (PBS IV 1, p. 42, n. 1 ;
Langdon, Babylonian Wisdom [London, 1923] p. 51, 1, 25 and n. 3). Our scribe can have
known that name and used it when he made up his spurious dynasty of Larsa.
[Footnote 18 continued from page 71]
same way), ap. Sync.: ’AjutXXapos (probably restoration of
influenced by the similar name MeyaXapos). In an Assyrian omen text {KAR^ No. 434
rev.[?] 14), as first noted by Weidner (see Langdon, OECT II 3, n. 3, and Zimmern, op.
dt. p. 23, n. 3), the name occurs as This latter form, which seems to rep-
Critical Edition of the Text, Col, i 12-18
73
12 reigned 43,200 years;
En-men-gal-Anna(k)
reigned 28,800 years;
15 divine Dunau-zi(d), a shepherd, reigned 36,000 years.
3 kings
reigned its 108,000 years.
I drop (the topic) Bad-tibira(k) ;
resent the pronunciation of the name in later periods, is obviously the basis for Berossus’
*’AjLtJU€XwP.
Berossus agrees with WB in placing **Aiine\o3v as the first ruler of the dynasty. W-B 62
has Dumu-zi(d) as the first, En-men-lu-Anna(k) as the second, ruler. After Be-
rossiis has a ruler *A}xfjL€v<^v (Polyhist. and Abyd. ap. Euseb.: Ammenon, ap. Sync.: ’Ajujue*
v<av)f whom Langdon (OECT II 3) identifies with En-men-gal-Anna(k). Langdon is fol-
lowed by Smith {EH A, p. 19); but Zimmern (op. dt. p. 23, n. 4) has rightly seen that
En-men-gal-Anna(k) must correspond to Berossus’ M€ 7 aXapos, Amegalaros, etc. (see be-
low, n. 20). He therefore assumes (following Weissbach in Schnabel, Berossos, p. 179, and
King, Legends of Babylon and Egyptj p. 32) that the tradition used by Berossus had a ruler
En-me-nunna ( == *A{x^€vo3v) here. This En-me-nunna would then be identical with En-me(n)-
nunna of the 1st dynasty of Kish and would, like Dumu-zi(d), appear both as an antedilu-
vian and as a postdiluvian ruler. To us this construction seems most unlikely. We prefer
to consider *Aiiii^v<jiv with his reign of 12 sar (i.e., 43,200 years) a mere doublet of the pre-
ceding **AyfX€k(ap with 13 sar (i.e., 46,800 years) and to assume that one of these got into the
text from a variant reading written in the margin or above the line in some early manuscript
of Babyloniaca. Note also that the 12 sar of *Afxtiev(ap correspond exactly to the figure for
En-men-lu-Anna(k) given in WB.
19 W-B 62: 21,600; Berossus: 46,800.
20 'VV’-B 62 omits this ruler. Berossus had presumably ^'AixiieyaKavos (Polyhist. and Abyd.
ap. Euseb.: Amegalaros [var. Amelagaros], ap. Sync.: MeyaXapos). As Zimmern has seen
{ZDAIG n.F. Ill 23), this reflects earlier ’ApeyaXaws, which we assume to derive from a stOl
earlier *h^r\'W/C rAAANoc< /n C r A a a n o c. This Appey aXavos corresponds to
En-men-gal-Anna(k) (late form: *Ammegalan(na)) asdoes *’A/iAi€Xajz/toEn-men-lu-Anna(k)
(late form: Ammeluan(na)); cf. Zimmern, loc, dU
Berossus: 64,800.
22 52: [<^d u m u] - z i s i p a . Berossus: Aaojvos woipriv or perhaps better *Aao3^o^
iroipriv (Polyhist. ap. Sync.: Aacjpos ttolptip] Abyd. ap. Sync.: Aaws Trotpijp. Polyhist. and
Abyd. ap. Euseb. both give the name as Daonos). W-B 62 places this ruler as the first
king of the dynasty, before En-men-lu-Anna(k), while Berossus, whose intrusive *App&^i»p
should be disregarded (see n. 18 above), agrees with WB in placing him third. The variant
forms of the name in Berossus, Aacopos andAaws (<Aaw[yo]s), may represent an original
Aac^^os (original "L corrupted to as suggested by Sayce [quoted in OECT II 3, n. 2]),
for which we may compare the late Babylonian form Du^uzi and the form (TaTiz)
used by the §abeans of Harran in the Middle Ages (D. A. Chwolson, Ober TammiXz und die
Menschenverehrung hei den alien Babyloniern [St. Petersburg, 1860] p. 38; OECT II 3, n. 2;
cf. Burrows in Orientalia No. 7 [1923] p. 55 and n. 1). Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 23 rightly
assumes the existence of Babylonian forms *Da^uzi and *Damuzi as variants of Dumuzi.
Berossus agrees with WB on 36,000; W-B 62 gives 28,800.
74
The Sumerian King List ^ ^ ^ ^
WB
19
nam-lugal-
• b i I a - r a - a k^K-se> b a -
tdm
WB
20
la-ra-ak^^^^
e n (!)-sipa-zi-an-na25
WB
mu
28,8002<'> i-as
WB
1 1 u g a 1
WB
mu-bi
28,800 fb-a5
WB
1 a - r a - a k^^
ba-sub-be-en
WB
25
nam-lugal-
• b i z i m b i - s e
WB
b a - 1 dm.
WB
z i m b i
e n - m e - e n - d d r - a n - n
WB
lugal-am29
m u 21,000^® I - as
WB
1 i u,g a 1, ,v
WB
m u “ b i
21,000 lb -as
WB
30
zimbir^^
ba-sub-bd-en
WB
nam-lugal-
• b i dixruppak^K-§^)^^ ba-
t d m
WB
guruppak^'
u b u r - 1 u - 1 11^2
Thus also W-B 62. PBS V, No. 1, omits the determinative k i . Epic fragment
K 11624 writes 1 a? - r a - a k - , which corresponds closely to Berossus’ ’^‘AapaTxa (Poly-
hist. ap. Sync.: ^ Aapajxoit', ap. Euseb.: Lanchara [vars, lianchara, Chanchara]).
PBS V, No. 1, W-B 62 (if we ignore the spurious Larsa dynasty), and Berossus agree
on Larak as the third antediluvian city. Note, however, that in Berossus "^EveSccpayxos,
who corresponds to En-men-dur-Anna(k) of Sippar, has been counted as the last king of
Bad-tibira(k), so that Berossus may originally have had Sippar as the third and Larak as
the fourth city. This is strongly supported by the fact that K 11624 actually shows Sippar
preceding Larak.
Thus according to collation. W-B 62:[e]n"Sipa-zi-an-na; K 11624: e [n -
sipa-zi-an-na] ; Berossus: (Polyhist. ap. Euseb. : Amempsinos, ap.
Sync.: ^Afiep^tvos). The form probably represents a late form of En-
s i p a (d) - z i (d) - A n n a (k) , Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 24 suggests
that the initial *Afi represents an e m e -sal form of e n , a m , also found in * AjupeXcoj/ =
am-me-lu-an-m == en-me-ld-an-na etc. The following € can be a misreading of
C, and n may stand for carelessly written f above which the scribe had added
Y to make it clearer but which was copied as Mr (the explanatory being con-
sidered correction of an omission). This would give a development Ensipzi(a)n(na) =
*^MCfTlN0C > *^k^\C^t^NOC > A/nCHYINOC,
26 02, Berossus, and probably K 11624: 36,000.
27 Epic fragment K 11624 has Sippar before Larak; and Berossus, who now does not list
Sippar, may also originally have had that order (cf. n. 24).
28 ■yv'-B 62: en-me-dur-an-na; Berossus: ^EireSojpayxos (Polyhist. ap. Euseb. :
Eveddranchos [var. E( v )edo( r )anchos], ap. Sync.: EmScapaxos; Abyd. ap. Euseb.: E(ve>-
doreschos, ap. Sync.: EifeSaipea-xos. The form given by Abyd, may be explained through
Ar > mr > t.c. The name of this king is found also in the bdrH ritual K 2486 (Zimmern,
Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der hahyhnischen Religion. Die Beschwdrungstafdn SurpUy BituaU
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. i 19-32
75
19 its kingship to Larak was carried.
20 (In) Larak En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-iLiHm(k)
reigned its 28,800 years,
1 king
reigned its 28,800 years.
I drop (the topic) Larak;
25 its kingship to Sippar
was carried.
(In) Sippar En-men-dur-Anna(k)
became king and reigned 21,000 years.
1 king
reigned its 21,000 years.
30 I drop (the topic) Sippar;
its kingship to Shuruppak was carried.
(In) Shuruppak IJbar-Tutu(k)
iafelnfur den WahrsageTf Beschworer und Sanger [^^Assyriologische Bibliothek” XII (Leipzig,
1901)] No. 24 obv. 1), where it appears as en-me-dur-an-ki. This form is ob-
viously behind the variants in Berossus, which, as Zimmern has pointed out {ZD MG n.F.
Ill 24), reflect an original *E6€5c»)pa7xoS‘ Of the two forms e n-me-dur-an-na
and en-me-dur-an-ki, the first seems original; for the sign (na) could
easily be misread ^ (o) if slightly damaged, and we must reckon with influence from
the name of the ziggurat in Nippur, Dur-an-ki(k). Note the similar wavering in the name
of the ziggurat in Larsa: e-dur-an-na/4-dur-an-ki (Ebeling in RLA II 275).
2® On the sudden occurrence oflugal-^m here and in the following dynasty see p. 68.
so W-B 62: 72,000; Berossus: 64,800.
Written su-e:ur-rij^‘; W-B 62: su-kur-lam^^; K 11624: lam+kitr-ru^^ Berossus has
no dynasty of Shuruppak but assigns the rulers of this city to Larak (see nn. 32 and 34 be-
low). Of these writings only the first, su-kub-rxt^S is correct, lam+siur-ru^* is in reality
a phonetic writing of the name of a different city, Lamkurru, older Numkurru (see n. 115
below). Its use to designate Shuruppak (sxj-kitr-ru^O must be due to confusion of the
similar signs su and lam (see Albright and Kramer, quoted below). Similarly the writing
su-kur-lam^^ is probably due to confusion of ru and lam, which also resemble each other.
On the problems presented by these writings see Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 45, n. 1; Albright in
JAOS XLV (1925) 206 f.; Zimmern in ZA n.F. V (1930) 252, n. 5; Kramer in JAOS LII
(1932) 117-19.
32 W-B 62: ubur-tu-tu; K 11624: ubur-t[u-tu] ; Berossus: *QTiapT7}Sj
*Ap6aTr)s (so Polyhist. ap. Sync.; ap. Euseb.: Otiartes). The Ninevite version of the Gil-
games epic (Tablet XI 23) has uhar-tu-tu. The form transmitted from Berossus by Poiyhis-
tor, uL'r\b>.fT'wC} probably represents an older * coj^KfryKc (according to Zimmern in ZDMG
n.F. Ill 24, n. 3; first suggested by Oppert) or even, utilizing the variant ^Apdarrjs,
*ca HA? which may perhaps have derived from original ^canAfr-car-acc through
a damaged text , The form with a, Ubar-Tutu(k), attested by the Gil-
games epic and by Berossus, seems to be the more original, as IJbur-Tutu(k) is naturally
76
The Sumeeian King
List
WB
33
iugal-i
1 m
mu 18,
600^3
1 - as
WB
1 lugaF^
WB
35
mu-bi
18,600
1 b - as
WB
5 u r - m e •
-e§
WB
8 lugal
WB
m u (-hi)
241,200
lb -as
WB
a - m a - r
u
ba-
ur ta®^
WB
40
egir
a -
m a - r u
ba-
ur- r a- 1 a
WB
nam-lu
Lgal
an-ta
6ll
- d ^ - a - b a
WB
k i § iki 37
na
.m-l
u g a 1 - 1
WB
k i §
g
a(?)
li r®®
WB
lugal-
h m
WB
45
m u
1,200
i-as
WB
L,
SU2
gul-la
% i <
dab a aii-n
a-fd
sikiP®
WB
u
SU2
m u
960"'
i-ag
explained as a development from Ubar-Tutu(k) by assimilation of a to the preceding 6
and following w’s. Berossus lists 'Ortapr??? as king of Larak (see n. 31). W-B 62 does not list
him as king but mentions him only as father of an otherwise unknown su-kxjr-lam who there
appears as father of Zi-u-sud-ra. As Landsberger (see Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 21, n. 1)
has convincingly suggested, su-ktjr-lam should be read simply Shuruppak, and this ruler
owes his existence to an old misinterpretation of the phrase zi-u-sud-^ra dumu
su-KUR-LAM (i.e., suruppak) , '^Zi-u-sud-ra, the man from Shuruppak,” in which the
city name was taken to be a personal name: '*Zi-u-sud-ra, the son of Shuruppak.” The
sign - g i / - g e which follows the name su-kur-lam in W-B 62:10 (i.e., §uruppak-
k i) is explained by Zimmern, op. di, p. 20, n. 1, as ^Wokalverlangerung.” Could it pos-
sibly represent a thoughtless rendering of dictated(!) - k 64 ? Langdon’s reading A r a d -
gin and his combination of this with *Ap5aT77s {DECT II 3) do not carry conviction.
83 Berossus: 28,800; the same figure is assigned to su-eur-lam in W-B 62.
3^ The omission of Zi-u-sud-ra is curious. It would be understandable, however, if the
source used by WB was an excerpt from a larger legendary composition (cf. p. 64, n. 119)
in which the antediluvian kings down to Ubar-Tutu(k) were treated together in one sec-
tion of the narrative, that dealing with the founding of antediluvian cities, while Zi-u-sud-ra,
as hero of the Flood story, was dealt with separately in a following section on the Flood.
Such separation could have caused the excerptor to overlook him.
W-B 62 lists zi-U 4 -sud-rd as son of the preceding stj-kur-lam (see n. 32) and
gives him a reign of 36,000 years. Epic fragment K 11624 correctly has him (as z i - U4 -
sud-ra) after XJbar-Tutu(k), as son of that ruler. Berossus lists him after ^QnapTijs
(Ubar-Tutu(k)) as king of Larak (see n. 31) and gives him a reign of 36,000 years. The
name is written Xisuthros (Polyhist. and Abyd. ap. Euseb.), Zlo-ov^pos (Polyhist. ap.
Sync.), 'Zicrovd-po^ (Abyd. ap. Sync.), and Xu<n^po% (Abyd. ap. Euseb. Praep. ev.) or
(Sync.) (see Schnabel, BerossoSf p. 266, n. 21), which Zimmern (ZDMG n.F. Ill 24) rightly
derives from an original Zt<rou<?pos=Zisudra, which may be compared with the writing
zisudr^a in KAR^ No. 434 obv.(?) 7 (cf. Zimmern, op. dt, pp. 21, n. 2, and 24, n. 5) and with
zi-U 4 -sud-ra in K 11624. Should K 2054 rev. iv 9 also be read zi-sud-ra(!)
instead ofzi-sud-daas given in CT XYIII (1904) PL 30? The reading of the name,
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. i 33-47
77,
33 became king and reigned 18,600 years.
1 king " ■
35 reigned its 18,600 years.
5 cities were they;
8 kings
reigned their 241,200 years.
The Flood swept®® thereover.
40 After the Flood had swept thereover,
when the kingship was lowered from heaven
the kingship was in Kish.
In Kish Ga. .ur(?)
became king
45 and reigned 1,200 years;
Destroyed! To the heavenly Nidaba is it clear!
reigned 960 years;
which appears in a variety of writings in Sumerian and Akkadian texts, has been widely dis-
cussed (see e.g. Foebel, PBS IV 1, pp. 48-'50). We have adopted Zi-u-sud-ra as the form
which we consider most likely to be correct.
35 Dittography from b a - h r - r a - 1 a in the next line.
3® The verb hr —^ahdiu and sapdnUf ‘-uber etwas hinwegfahren oder "-streiehen, wossu
das gleichzeitige Beseitigen aller Unebenheiten der Oberflache als konstitutiv fiir die Be-
deutung von sapanu hinzukommt" (Landsberger in ZA n.F. Ill [1927] 216, n. 4). On
hr in connection with a-ma-ru see Langdon, OEOT 11 9, n. 4.
37 The sign with which the name of the city Kish is always written represents the head
of an ungulate quadruped. Since the Sumerian word for ^^to run,^^ '^to gallop/^ ka§,
would furnish a good etymology for a word k i § or k a s denoting a swift-running hoofed
animal, we may assume that the sign originally represents an animal of that name. Its
use to express the similar-sounding city name is thus purely phonetic.
33 Here ends the secondary section on the antediluvian period which was added to the
King List. See pp. 55-68 and esp. p. 64, n. 119.
33 We have, with some hesitancy, accepted Langdon^s reading g 4 . In the photo-
graph the sign shows as . There is a break in the tablet before and after this
sign. Langdon (OECT II 9, n. 5) may be right in assuming that nothing is missing in
the break before ga(?) ; in the break after ga(?) the photograph seems to show faint rem-
nants of wedges. Langdon^s combination of the name with Polyhistor^s Evek'sios, EinjxoLos
(see n. 115 below) is untenable (see Zimmem in ZDMG n.F. Ill 30, n. 2). The latter name
corresponds to En-me(r)-kar.
“*3 Clearly not a personal name but a copyist’s note that the passage was damaged
(gull -a) in his original. He piously adds: ^‘To heavenly Nidaba (Kt., Vith [-da]
Nidaba of heaven [ann-a (k) -]’) is it clear”; i.e., the goddess of writing herself would
undoubtedly be able to make it out. Remnants of the original name seem to be preserved
in L 2 , which has ^te^-l ] here.
^ L 2 : which should undoubtedly be restored i.e., 1,200; see Poebel in OLZ
XXVII (1924) 263.
78 The Sumerian King List
CoL ii
Ps La
Su2
1
[p a - 1 a " k 1 - n a - 1 i - i
]
L 2
Su2
[mu 900^^
i- as]
Ps La
SU2
[n a - a n - g i § - 1 i » i s - m
]
L 2
SU2
[mu
i - as]
WB Ps
SU2
5
b a - !|i [i (?) -n a^® mu
i-as]
WB Ps
BU-AN-^?^ - [u [SldO^*^
i - as
WB P 2 Ps
Ps Sui
k a - 11 - b u - u
WB P 2 Ps
Sui
mu 960^^
i - as
WB P 2 Ps
Ps Sui
qd^'^-lu-mu (!)^^ mu 840^^
i - as
WB P 2 Ps
Ps Sui
10
z - q a - q - i
WB P 2 Ps
Sui
mu 900^®
i- as
WB P 2 Ps
Ps <Sui>
a-tab®^ mu 600®^
i - as
Thus L 2 ; we read the last signs, as 9^^ (- ‘‘t i - i m’’). Sug has [pd-la-
ki]-na-i-dim 7 (cf . its similarly awkward spelling en-me-bdra-ga-e-si for
En-me(n)“barage-si in ii 2). P 5 : i.e., ‘‘p d^ - 1 [a] - k i - [11 a - 1 i - i m] . The
name means ^^reign of righteousness” (with gen. pi. of kittmn).
Thus L 2 . This reading of is preferable; see Poebel in OLZ XXVII 263.
Thus L 2 . Su 2 : [ he., [n a - a n - g i §] - 1 i - 6 sM?) - m a ; Ps :
i.e., fn a - a n - g i i - 1 P - [i § - m a] , The meaning of the name is probably
^^May he (a deity?) listen cheerfully.” Nangi^ seems to be the “adverb” of ^nangH,
“to be cheered up,” IVi infinitive of “to be joyous” {AH^ p. 446 a), The old form
Usma(^) (cf. Ungnad in MVAG XX 2 [1916] p. 87) instead of later lihne is noteworthy.
^^The reading and meaning of this name are uncertain. WB has ], i.e., ba-
[i (?) - n a] ; SU 2 : [b a - 1] - n a ; P 5 : i.e., b a - [h] i (?) - •’n a"* - e . After the
name Su 2 gives [ ] - d m , which probably represents [1 u g a 1] -> a m . It is unlikely that
this line is original, for there is not room for it in WB, and it is lacking in Ps also.
^ The reading and meaning of the name are uncertain. WB has according to Langdon’s
copy mmmrn/m/mm. (in photograph can be seen), i.e., bu-an-
’'nttH?)-*^i^mK?). Ps gives i.e., bxt-an~?-um. Since all the following names are ani-
mal names, we should perhaps expect an animal name here.
Preservedonly in WB: ^ (in photograph can be seen), which probably represents
(840).
I.e., “dog” {kalhum). Note the old form with f, for which Syriac and the prop-
er name -1^5 may be compared.
^^P 2 : y/0) i.e., (900). WB's figure must be considered closer to the original; see
pp. 19-21.
Thus also Ps. P 3 : q d - ; Sui: q a - .
^^Ps and Pfi add - um ; P 2 adds -um-e. Langdon’s transliteration and translation
of WB (OEOT II 10) give k a ( = q d) - 1 u « m u - m u ; his copy gives qd-lu-mu.
A collation shows the latter form to be correct. The name means “iamb” {AEj p. 333;
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. ii 1-12 79
' Colii'
^ 1 : Pald-kfnatim
reigned 900 years;
Nangish4ishm4
reigned . /years;
5 Bahina(?) reigned . . years;
Bu--AN“?-um reigned 840 years;
Kalibum
reigned960years;
Qalumu(m) reigned 840 years;
10 Zuqaqip v
reigned 900 years;
Atab reigned 600 years;
Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 111. PoebeFs argument for reading this word qalumii is supported
by the writing with q a - in Sui. On this name cf. also Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII [1934] 5).
52 Pj: 900. In Sui ^ must also represent 900 (^^). p 2 ^s is ambiguous. Since WB
seems to be the most reliable source for this section as a whole (see pp. 15-23), it is likely
that it preserves the better text.
55 Ps and Pg: z u - ; Sui and Pa with w are ambiguous.
54 Thus also Pi, Pa, and Sui. Pg has - q i - .
55 P 2 adds - e. The name means ^^scorpion’^ (see Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. Ill; Giiter-
bock in ZA n.F. VIII 5). The reading Zuqaqip is proved correct by the fact that it fur-
nishes a parallel to the other animal names in the section. There is nothing to support
Langdon^s view (OECT II 10, n. 7) that we should read dug 4 -ga-gi 4 -ib.
The place of Zuqaqip and his predecessor Qalumu(m) is different in WB from what it
is in the other lists, where these rulers appear farther down. As shown above (pp. 19-23),
the order of WB is here original.
55 Thus also P 2 : which can only be (900). Ps has — according to PoebeFs
copy — but the photograph in PBS V, PI. XCI, seems to have i.e,, 2!^ (900).
Sui has i.e., (600), which has evidently developed from 3^? (900) through r<LW] in a
damaged text (see p. 17).
57 Pa has Pg both of which should obviously be restored - b . This
agrees with P3, which has [ ] - b a . Sui omits the name. On the original form of the
passage see pp. 21-22. In passing through a damaged text the words mas-d^ dumu
were lost, so that £-tab-ba came to figure as name of the successor of d - 1 a b ,
a stage in the development of the text now represented by WB. In the other branch
of the tradition, the B branch, the d - 1 a b passage was then damaged once more, as wit-
nessed by the entire omission of the line d - 1 a b mu 600 i - as in Sui, the blank line left
for m u 600 i - ag in P2, and the form d - b a (!) in P2, P3, and Pg, which is clearly an in-
correct restoration based on a damaged d - [t a b] and made under influence of the fol-
lowing d-tab-ba.
55 P 2 leaves a blank space for the figure and i - ag. Sui omits the line entirely.
80
The Shmeeian King List
WB
Pa
P3
Pa
Sui
13
<ma§-d^ dum
a-
•tab
-ba«»
m u
840^' i-as
WB
Pa
Pa
Pa
Sui
ar- d
umu
m;
as*
“•ke4
WB
Pa
Pa
Sui
15
mu
72055
i“ as
WB
Pa
Pa
Pa
SUx
e “ t a®® - n a®^ s i p a
1
d
an-sfe
WB
Pa
Pa
Pa
Sui
ba«-eii-dfe«»
WB
Pa
Pa
Sui
Id k u r - k u r'”
m u
- u
n-
•gi”-
n a^^
WB
Pa
Sui
^^1 u g a 1 - a m u 1,560^^
(var. 1,<
500?)
i-a5
WB
Pa
Pa
Sui
K
20
ba-li-i^7®
WB
Pa
Pa
Sui
K
d u m u
e
-t
- n a
-kex
WB
Pa
Sui
m u 400^^
(var. 410)
i- a6
WB
Pa
■Ps
Sui
K
en-me'^^-nun-
n a®° ]
iU u
660«i
i-aa
On this emendation see pp. 21 f .
Not a new name but merely the genitive of the preceding d, - 1 a b , as shown in de-
tail on pp. 21 f.
s^Thus also P 3 ; which can be restored as (840). Sui’s (720) is clearly
secondary and derived from (840) through r<?F in a damaged text. P 2 leaves a blank
line here.
P 5 : a r - w i - d ; P 2 : a r - w i ; Sm: ar-wi-umjPs: ar-bu-um. Ail of these
forms would seem to derive from that given by WB, ar-wi-d~um, through dam-
aged texts; cf. p. 17.
6 ® P 3 adds -EN--
®^The addition of -en- in Ps changes the meaning to ^^a plebeian^^ (see p. 17, n. 36).
That this variant is secondary is clearly shown by the close relationship in meaning be-
tween m a s - d ^ = §aUtumy “gazelle,” and arwi^um, “male gazelle.” The form of the
entry also excludes a rendering “plebeian.” A detailed discussion of the passage is given
above (pp. 17 f.).
®®Thus also P 2 . In Pa w should be restored (720).
®®Thus also P 2 , P 3 , and Pg. Sui has - t4 - .
This ruler appears as the chief character of the Etana epic (Langdon, “The legend of
Etana and the eagle,” Bahyloniaca XII [1931] 1-56). He is also mentioned in the frag-
ment K 14788 iCT XXXIV [1914] PL 18) and in the Gilgames epic (R. C. Thompson,
The Epic of Gilgamish [Oxford, 1930] PL 30:49), where he appears as resident in Hades.
An omen concerning him is KAR^ No. 434 obv.(b 9. The text Ki 1904-10-9, 87-l-K 5119
(0. R, Gurney, “A bilingual text concerning Etana,” JRASj 1935, pp. 459-66), which
deals with the seven apkallu% refers to him in H. 3-4: [e - 1 a - n a s i p a] Id a n - s 6
ba-an-^ / [&-ta~na ri^u] sa ana sami^ i-Zw[-tt], “Etana, a shepherd, the one who ascend-
ed to heaven.” Most of the references to Etana have been collected by Giiterbock in ZA
n.F. VIII 22.
A Sumerian etymology of the name Etana, ^^Ascender (e d) of heaven (a n n - a),”
was proposed by Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 112. It has the support of the writing <^5 - 1 a - n a
in Lutz, Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts (PBS I 2 [1919]) No. 112 ii 67: z i -
ta-na an-^ kur - .- g4 bd<-pA), “The life of Etana, (the one) ascending heav-
en, the .... of the foreign lands, be invoked.” (Cf. Gurney, op, dt. p. 462, n. 1. Gurney's
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. ii 13-23
81
13 (Mashda, son) of Atab/^ reigned 840 years;
Arwi=*um, son of Mashda,®^
15 reigned 720 years;
Etana, a shepherd, the one who to heaven
ascended,
the one who consolidated alF® lands,
became king and reigned 1,560 (var. 1,500?) years ;
20 Balih,
son of Etana,
reigned 400 (var. 410) years;
En-me(n)-numia reigned 660 years;
explanation of the name as an imperative of h is not probable.) We do not yet, however,
consider this etymology sufficiently well established to adopt a form Ed-'ana(k), but keep
provisionally the rendering Etana.
Thus also Ps, Sui, and perhaps Pg, where the sign is damaged. Pa has h (?) -ib(?)'' - .
p 2 and Fa: - d a .
70 Pg and Sui add “ r a . 72 also P 2 and Siii. P 3 : -ni.
7ip]i|jis also P 2 . Sui: -gu-. ’^Cf. GSG §142.
74-74 P 2 and Sui omit. Since the phrase can easily have been omitted by accident (being
overlooked by a copyist or disappearing in a lacuna), whereas it is difficult to imagine why
a copyist should have inserted it if he did not find it in his original, we must assume that
WB preserves the correct text.
7s Thus according to the photograph; Langdon reads 1,500. Sui: (1,500);
P 2 : (635), a figure which is no doubt derived from an original 1,500 (i^T^W) through
a damaged text, difficult to read.
7® P 5 and Sui also write ba-li-ifi* P 2 has w a - 1 i - i h , which perhaps represents
a mishearing in dictation. K has an»illad, i.e., Balihu; see E. A. Speiser, Mesopotamian
Origins (Philadelphia, 1930) p. 151. The name occurs also (as ha-li-fpum) on a cylinder
seal seen by Scheil in Aleppo and published by him in MDP VI (1905) 53, No. 11 , and
in RA XIII (1916) 11, IV 3.
77 Thus also P 2 and Pg; Sui: - [t] 4 - . For the name as a whole K has ki-min, w'hich
refers back to its previous mention.
78 P 2 : 410. Sux’s also would seem to represent 410 It is uncertain which
branch of the tradition preserves the better text,
78 Thus also P 2 , P 6 , and Sm; K: -men-.
80 Thus also Pfi, Sui, and K; P 2 adds -ke 4 . The name En-me(n)-nunna forms part
of the name of a special type of wasp: dumu-en-me-nun-na, ^‘son of En-me(n)-
nunna.’’ See Poebel, PBS IV 1 , pp. 113 f.; Landsberger, Die Fauna des alien Mesopota-*
mien, p. 41, No. 39a; cf. ibid. p. 132.
81 Thus also Sui; P 2 : 611. As the figure 660 is represented in both the A branch (WB)
and the B branch (Sui) of the tradition, it must be original. The figure of P 2 , 611, has ob-
The Sumekiah King List
82
WB
P 2
P 5
Sui
K
24
-ki
dumu e
n •
- m
e “
nun-na-k
WB
P 2
P 5
Sui
K
25
m u
900
i -
-as
WB
P 2
P 5
Sui
b a r " s a 1 -
nun-na ®
u m u <
641
- m e«
nun-na®^
WB
P 2
Ps
Sui
m u
1,200
i-
-as
WB
P 2
Ps
Sui
u mii g
s a-
m u g®^
dumu
b a
r -
s a 1 " n u
n- n
WB
P 2
Pb
mu
140
i-
- as
WB
P 2
Pb
30 t
i-iz-kar^^
00
00
mu s
umdg s
a - ;
mu
WB
Pb
m u
305(!)«9
i-
- as
WB
Pb
1 - k u - li
90
mu
: 900
i.
- as
WB
Pb
il-t a-sa
-du
- u m
WB
Pb
SU2
mu
1 , 200^1
i
-as
WB
Pb
SU2
35
en-me-e
n'2-
b a r a
“ g - s i
(0
94
WB
Pb
SU2
H ti
ma
“da
e 1 a
m^^‘ “ m a
viously developed from an original (660) through a text in which the stylus of the
scribe slipped so that it left a double imprint of the < -wedge: T<T.
Thus also P 2 , Ps, and Sm; K: m eg - .
83 Thus also P2; Ps omits -ke 4 . K writes ki-min, referring back to En-me(n)-nunna
in the preceding line.
84-84 Pg omits; P 2 adds - k 64 . Since dumu en-me-nun-na(-ke 4 ) appears
in both branches of the tradition (A branch: WB; B branch: P 2 ), it must be original, and
the omission in Ps is therefore secondary.
85~.85 pjjg name has been variously read: mes-za-mug (Poebei, PBB IV 1, pp. 74
and 82; Zimmern in ZD MG n.F. Ill 30; Legrain, PBS XIII 11), tup-za-ah (Lang-
don, OECT II 10), Dubzali(?) (Weidner in Meissner, Bahylonien und Assyrim II [Hei-
delberg, 1925] 441), mes-za-alj. (Barton, RISA^ p. 348), etc. The last sign of the
name is without any doubt mug, as read by Poebei, Zimmern, and Legrain. A com-
parison of our sign as it is written in WB and P* with the way a h / i li is written in these
texts (a few lines higher up in the name Balih) establishes this beyond question. More
difficult is the first sign; WB has a clear nnp {REC, No. 385), while Ps has W, which
may be um {REC, No, 79) or a simplified form of nup. Since the scribes of the period from
which our texts date did not distinguish clearly among the signs um (REC, No. 79), mes
(REC, No. 363), and dup {REC, No. 385) (see SL, No. 138.1; and note that WB uses
RECj No. 385, i.e., dup, in such names as Gilgames, Mes-Anne-pada, and Mes-kiag-nun-
na(k), where a reading mes is unquestionable), no safe conclusions as to the reading
can be drawn from the form of the sign alone. A reliable clue to the reading is given, how-
ever, by the last two signs of the name: za-mug or sa-mug corresponds so close-
ly to the value sumfig/samd,g of RECj No. 385 (dup), that there can be no doubt
that the combination represents an old gloss which has got down into the text (for simi-
lar cases see nn. 159 and 291 below). We should therefore read s u m li g and restore the
older form of the line as s u m ti In the translation we have rendered this name
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. ii 24-36
83
24 Melam-Kishi(k), son of En-me(n)-nuima,
25 reigned 900 years;
Bar-sal-nunna, son of En-me(n)-nunna,
reigned 1,200 years;
Samug,®® son of Bar-sal-nunna,
reigned 140 years;
30 Tizkar, son of Samug,
reigned 305 years;
Ilku^" reigned 900 years;
Ilta-sadum
reigned 1,200 years;
35 En-nie(n)-barage-si,
the one who carried away as spoil
Samug, since Suiniig is obviously a later pronunciation, derived from Samug by assimila-
tion of a to the following m and w.
P2 and Pfi add - k 64 .
^ 87 ^j^l^adian. Probably abbreviation of a longer, theophorous name such as Tizkar^
^Sama^, mindful of Shamash.” Cf. the names with this element listed in Chiera, PBS
XI 1, p. 50, Nos. 20-21.
88-88 Pg -.ke4. P2: dumu bar-sal-nun“na-ke 4, which is clearly dit-
tography from suindg sa-mug dumu bar»sal-nun-na-ke 4 just above.
That dumu s u m d g s a > m u g (- k 64) is the earlier form of the text is showm also
by the fact that it appears in both branches of the tradition (A branch : WB ; B branch : P5) .
88 Thus according to the photograph; Langdon reads 306.
88'- 80 Pg [i]l-ku-um-e. Which is correct?
81 Thus also Sus: which can only represent an original P:k (1,200).
82 Pg and Su2 omit.
83 Thus also Ps; SU2: - g a - e - . On the latter form cf. PBS X 2, No. 5 rev. 9: en-
m e “ a r a “ g a (?) - - s i , and note the similarly artificial spelling [k i] - n a - i - d i m?
for k t n a t i m in Su2 (n. 42 above).
84-si is clear in WB and in the parallel texts. Langdon’s reading - gur- (OECT
II 11) is erroneous (cf. Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 30, n, 16; Scheil in RA XXXI [1934]
161). En-me(n)-barage“Si is mentioned as father of Aka in the tale of Gilgarnes' war on
Kish {PBS X 2, No. 6 rev. 9; cf. p. 145, n. 20).
95-95 omits. Ps with [ ] 8^®t u k [u 1 ] " b i i [b] - T - a [n - g d r] and P5 with
id ma-da eia - [m] a u k u P - ^b P 6 - T - a n - fg d agree with
WB except that Pjs has i b - instead of i b - . The omission of this note in Su2 must be
secondary, for it is attested both in the A branch (WB) and in the B branch (Ps and Ps) of
the tradition and is accordingly an original feature. Probably Su2 derives through a text
damaged at this place.
84
The Sumeeian King List
WB
P 3
Ps
SU 2
37
u k u 1
-bi
fb-
t a -a n -
gd
WB
P 3
Ps
Su2
n g a 1 -
£i m®^
m u
900^s
i - as
WB
P 3
SU2
a5 « k
WB
P 3
SU2
40
dumu
e n - m
e - e
'*• b a r a -
g e’-"’- -
si(!)io2.
-ke4i“®
WB
P 3
Su2
m u
625
i - as^M
WB
Pa
Su2
23
lugal
WB
Pa
Su2
m u " b i
i“®24,610
i t u 3
WB
Pa
Su2
U 4 3
U 4
1105
2
i b “ as
WB
Pa
Su2
45
k i §
u k
:ul
b a - a “ s 1 g
WB
P 2
SU2
n am-lu
g a 1 - b
i 10^5
- a n - n a
,-§ 51 ”
WB
P 2
Su2
b a
- 1 d m
WB
P 2
4 - a n - n j
a - k a
Col. iii
WB
P 2
[m e s - k i] - a
- g a - [§
e - e r]
WB
P 2
[dumu]
%tu
e n
- ^ [m]
WB
Ps
[1 u g a 1] -
k m
m u
32[4]iio
i- as
®®This seems the best translation; giir = saldlu^ “to take away as spoil” (*SL, No.
362.20). Langdon's translation (DECT II 11 ), “with his weapon subdued” (followed by
Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 30, n. 16; by Barton, RISA, p. 349; and — ^with slight change—
by Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 3: “dessen Waffe das elamische Land unterwarf”), does not
take into account the fact that -bi can refer only to a neuter or to a collective;
u k u 1 - b i must therefore be the weapons of Elam and cannot be the weapon of
En-me (n) •barage-sL
97-97 Thus apparently also P 5 , Su 2 and — as is probable from the spacing — P 3 omit. Since
lugal-^m is attested in both branches of the tradition (A branch: WB; B branch:
Pfi), it must be original and the omission in Su 2 and P 3 secondary.
Thus also Su 2 , Ps, and Ps. The latter has which should probably be restored
[rriP' (900).
Thus also Su 2 ; P 3 omits - k ^ . Since - k h is found in both branches of the tradition
(A branch: WB; B branch: SU 2 ), it must be original and the omission in Ps secondary.
Aka (written as - k ^) is mentioned in the story of Gilgames’ war on Kish (see p. 145, n. 20)
and in Chronicle Weidner (Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 48, 1. 31', where it is spelled “as -
k a) , The name is frequent in the Fara texts (Deimel, Die Inschriften von Fara III [WVDOG
XLV (Leipzig, 1924)] 20*), where it is spelled ak , i.e., ak (a) .
P 3 and Su 2 omit. - s i - is certain; see n. 94 above.
Sua: “ g a - e " ; see n. 93 above. Sua omits.
Ps adds here a summary of the reigns of En“me(n)-barage~si and his son:
''1,5^25(?) m[u dumu-dumu] 1,525(?) years the family
en-me-b[d.ra-ge-si] of En-me(n)-barage-si.
Since other texts both in the A branch (WB) and in the B branch (SU 2 ) do not show this
total, we must consider it a secondary feature peculiar to Ps. Cf. the similar case below
■ Critical Edition oe’'the Text,. Cols. vii/ 37—
37 the weapons of tbe land of Elam,®® ^ ^ ^
became king and reigned 900 yeans;
Aka,
40 son of En-me(n)-barage-si,
reigned 625 years.
23 kings
reigned its 24,510 years, 3 months,
and 3| days.
45 Kish was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to E-Anna(k)^®®
was carried.
In E“Anna(k)
Col. iii
Mes-kiag-gasher,
son of Utu, became high priest
and king and reigned 324 years.
(p. 113, n. 255). Apparently the scribe of Ps (or of one of its predecessors) had a special pre-
dilection for such ^'family” totals.
105-106 p 3\<5 ] olso can be thus restored. Su 2 has mu ^ itu
tlT U 4 ?T>^, which most likely derives from the figures of WB through a broken text:
m u - b i itu U 4 W m Our scribe miscopied W as W and — ^being
used to summaries of the form mu-bi x mu y itu z U 4 — read as indicated by the
horizontal braces and ^^corrected’' the text by inserting a m u after what he considered
the figure for the years. Scheil in RA XXXI 161 has already seen that the difference
between the two figures ^'s^explique naturellement par des lapsus de copiste,^*
106 We must assume that the older form b a - s i g , retained in both main branches
of the tradition (A branch: J; B branch: Li, Sui, and SU 3 + 4 ), was the one used in the
original (see p. 131).
107-107 Thus also P 2 ; SU 2 : 4 -an-na^*-§^.
As first pointed out by Poebel {PBS IV 1, p. 115), the phrase presupposes that only
the temple precinct E-Anna(k) existed at the time. The city Uruk was built under En-me(r)-
■'■kar.':(iii'7-9),.
i^^sPg: -in-.
no Since the sum of the other reigns of the dynasty as given in WB is 324
years less than the total given for the dynasty as a whole, our figure should be restored as
ITHQJ?] (324; cf. Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 31, n. 3). A comparison of WB and Su 2 sug-
gests that Su 2 had the same figures as WB for the first ten rulers (see n. 143 below) and
therefore also 324 years for Mes-kiag-gasher. P 2 has 325. Since WB and Su 2 seem to agree
on 324, this figure is represented both in the A branch (WB) and in the B branch (SU 2 ) of
the tradition and may therefore be considered original.
The Sumeeian King List
WB P2
WB P2
WB P2
WB P2
WB P2
WB P2
WB P2
WB P2 Sui
4
5
10
e s ] - k i - d - ga-[se-er]
ab-ba
^jur-sag-se
en-me-ka d u m u
a - ga-se-e
1 u g a 1 u n - g a 1 li
m u - u - d i - a
lugal-4m
m u 420'*^'
b a - a n - 1 u
mes-ki-
u [n u
i-as
111 -ui xhis note is probably an early addition; see p. 143, n. 14.
-in-.
P 2 adds ft, i.e., b a - ^a"! - eu . The plene writing serves to express hiatus.
^^^ab-ba ba-an-tu can hardly mean ‘^penetrated to the sea” (Langdon, DECT
II 11) but must be “entered the sea,” “went into the sea” (Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 31,
n. 2: “zog in das Meer hinein”; Smith, ERA, p. 33: “entered the sea”; Gtiterbock in
ZA n.F. VIII 3: “drang in das Meer ein”); and the contrast between t u , “to go in,”
and eii , “to go out,” suggests that we should translate the following hur-sag-s^
b a - en as “he came out toward the mountains.” The usual rendering, “he ascended the
mountains” (Langdon, loc. cit: “went up unto the mountains”; Zimmern, loc. dt.: “stieg
auf das Gebirge hinauf”; Smith, loc. dt.i “ascended the mountain”; Guterbock, loc. cit,:
“stieg auf das Gebirge”), does not bring out this contrast clearly. The rendering “came
out” is also supported by the fact that the journey of Mes-kiag-gasher, the “son of the
sun-god,” obviously reflects the daily journey of the sun. In the evening the sun goes
down into the sea in the west. During the night it travels underground, and in the morning
it comes out to the mountains in the east. Crossing over them, it then appears again to
the world.
en-me-er-ril-k^r. En-me(r)-kar is mentioned outside the King List
(1) in the Lugal-banda epic (SEM^ p. 1 and texts listed there), (2) in the epic of En-me(r)-
kar and Nigi of Lamkurru {SEM, pp. 1 f. and texts listed there. Nigi is mentioned in
No. 16 obv, iiilS: ni-gi en-ltm mes-bi, “Nigi, the high priest, is its hero,” and
ibid. 1.23: ni-gi en lam-kur-ru^*, “Nigi, the high priest of Lamkurru.” That
the city name is to be read phonetically, lam-kur-ru,is proved by the variant writ-
ing nu-um-kur-ruin SEM^ No. 19 obv. ii 18, for Numkurru is merely a phonetic
variant of Lamkurru: Numkurru > Lamkurru; see Poebel, GSG §64), (3) in the legend
of the king of Kuth^ (CT XIII, PI. 41 obv. 2), and (4) in Chronicle Weidner (ZA n.F.
VIII 48, 1. 32', 49, 1. 1, and 51). (5) The text dealing with the seven apkallu's (Ki 1904-
10-9, 87 [published by T. J. Meek in AJSL XXXV (1928/29) 138] obv. S-G-f-KSllO
[published by Gurney in JRAS, 1935, pp. 463-65] obv. 10-13; cf. Langdon, Babylonian
Penitential Psalms [OECT VI (Paris, 1927)] p. 32, and Gtiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 9 f.)
mentions the apkallu of En-me(r)-kar: [. .-ti]g-gal-gim. This note is of consid-
erable interest and probably refers to the traditions contained in the epic of Lugal-banda
and that of En-me(r)-kar and Nigi. It should be read:
[. .-ti]g-gal-gim nun-me <*en-me-kdr «*inanna ^-an-na~ke 4
an-ta en-de
[min] ap-dcal min Id Hs4ar il4u sam^ ana M^-rib a-a-<ik-ki d-se-ri-da
[Footnote 115 continued on facing page]
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. iii 4-11
87
4 Mes-kiag-gasher
5 went into the sea
and came out (from it) to the inountains.^^^^
En-me(r)-kar, son of Mes-kiag-gasher,
king of Uruk, the one who built
Uruk,i2o
10 became king
and reigned 420 years ;
.uggalgim, apkallu of En-me(r)-kar, (him) who made Inaiina(k) descend from heav-
en into E-Anna(k).”
The name En“me(r)-kar is written en-me-er-k4r in the Lugal-banda epic and
in the Nigi epic, but appears as en-me-k4r in Chronicle Weidner, in CT XIII, Pi.
41 obv, 2, and in the apkallu text. En-me-k4r represents the older orthography, in
which amissible consonants were not expressed (cf. AS No. 6, pp. 17 f.), whereas en-
me-er-kdr represents the younger, more explicit orthography. The name is thus
En-me(r)-kar. Whether the form given by Pg, e n - m e - e r - r h - k 4 r , is intentional
or the wedge !>— (r h) is merely a slip of the scribe is uncertain.
In post-Babylonian sources En-me(r)-kar is mentioned (1) as grandfather of Gilgames
by Aelian, De natura animalium xii 21, where the name 'Zewjxopos—siB first suggested by
von Gutschmid (see Zimmern in KAT^^ p. 565, n. 3, and in ZDMG n.F. Ill 31, n. 4) —
should be emended to (cf. Sayce, quoted byLangdon, OECT II 12, n. 3). Aelian’s
story probably derives ultimately from Berossus. (2) In the usual excerpts of Berossus En-
me(r)-kar appears in the forms (Polyhist. ap. Sync.) and Evek'sios, Eveokhos
(Polyhist. ap. Euseb.), i.e., *'R<yqxopos (von Gutschmid, quoted in KAT^j p. 565, n. 3;
Langdon, DECT II 9, n. 5; Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 30, n. 2, and 31, n. 4), which were
first identified with the name En-me(r)-kar by Schnabel (see Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill
31, n. 4) ; cf. n. 39 above. (3) In the scholia of Theodore bar Konl, as seen by Hugo Gress-
mann in Theologische Literaturzeitung XXX (1905) 586, the name which precedes
that of Gilgames cf. n. 128 below) in the list of rulers given by that author
(see Martin Lewin, Die SchoUen des Theodor bar Koni zur PaiTtarckengeschichie (Genesis
XII-L) [Berlin, 1905] p. 25, variant from ms. P), probably represents *E£r77xopos, En-me(r)-
kar.
116 Pa: -in-.
11^ Pa adds - k e* .
116 Pa adds - g a (?) , apparently dittography from the preceding u n ui=» - g a . See
Poebel in OLZ XXVII (1924) 262, n. 1.
11® Pa adds -da-, which changes the meaning from “(who) built Uruk” to “under
whom Uruk was built.” See Poebel, loc, dt
12® Pa: “the one under whom Uruk was built.”
121 Thus also Pa and Sui. Berossus (according to Polyhist.) gives Evek'sios, '^hrixoios
(emend to ’Eirqxopos) 2,400 years.
88
The Stjmeeian King List
WB P 2
Sui
12
u g a 1 - b ^ n - d
si p a
WB Pa
Sui
mu 1,20012^
, i - as
WB P 2
Sui
M u m u - z
' ' SU-PE§
WB P 2
Sui
15
u r u’'* - n i
k Us -
WB Ps
Sui
mu 100»”
i - as
WB Pa
Sui
^gilgames (‘^giS-bil-ga-mes)^^*
^22 Thus also Pa. Sui omits the determinative. Lugal-banda is the hero of the Sumerian
Lugal-banda epic {SRT, pp, 34 f.; SEM, p. 1; Falkenstein in OLZ XXXVI [1933] 301 f.;
Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 13, n. 1 ) and appears also in the legendary text PBS V, No. 20.
With the Akkadian myth of Zii and the theft of the tablets of destiny Lugal-banda has
nothing to do, nor does this myth form part of the Lugal-banda epic. Berossus seems to
mention Lugal-banda as the second of his postdiluvian kings and son of ^Einjxopos (En-
me(r)-kar), for the badly corrupt XwAtao-^iyXos (Polyhist. ap. Sync.; ap. Euseb. : Chomasbelos,
Khomasbelos) very likely derives from an original Lugal-banda:
* AClln H o C" .
That Xo3fiacr^7}\os should have developed out of a variant of the name Gilgames, *g a - m e s -
b i 1 , as Zimmern suggests {ZDMG n.F. Ill 31, n. 4), is not probable, for such a variant
is not likely to be found. Sayce’s derivation (in DECT II 9, n. 6 ) from gul-la
'^nidaba an-na-da sikil (cf . n. 40 above) is also unconvincing.
^23 Thus also P 2 and Sui. Berossus (Polyhist. ap, Euseb.) gives XcopacriSriXos (-Lugal-
banda) 2,700 years.
^24 As a terrestrial ruler ^Dumu- 2 i(d) appears also in the text PBS V, Nos. 20 -* 21 , which
deals with an Elamite attack on Babylonia in his time; see Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 117. Cf.
also n, 22 above.
125 The meaning of sit-pes is unknown. Perhaps it is to be identified with s u - k Ue ,
‘^fisherman, as is generally assumed (cf. Poebel, PBS IV 1 , p. 118; Langdon, OECT II 12;
Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 31, n. 6 ).
Various readings of the city name written or, with transposition of signs,
A-gA^^ have been proposed. Langdon {Babylonian Liturgies [Paris, 1913] p. 115, n. 2 ) sug-
gested a reading h a - b tl r . Most other scholars read s u b a r i (see Poebel, PBS IV 1,
p. 121 ; Zimmern in ZA n.F. V [1930] 255, n. 1; and Ungnad, Subartu, pp. 28-30 and the
literature quoted there). Of importance for the reading are only two passages: ( 1 ) In the
incantation CT XVI (1903) PI. 6 v 239-40 A-gA^» of the Sumerian line is rendered su-ba-7n
in the Akkadian translation. ( 2 ) In the Tammuz hymn published by K. D. Macmillan in
Beitrdge zur Assyriologie und sem/itischen Syrachwissenschaft V (1906) 674-75 obv. 25-26
A-igA^^ of the Sumerian line is rendered ku-u^a~ra in the Akkadian translation, and the
duplicate (G. Reisner, Sumerisch-hahylonische Hymnen [Berlin, 1896] No. 80:9) also has
^ku'^{l)-us’a-ra. Of these forms, ^ubari and ku’^araf only one can be correct. A comparison
with the old writing itself, gA-A^V^-gA^', shows clearly that ku^ara should be preferred;
for gA-A^* can be read k ue -a^* , and, since the amissible consonants were not expressed in
older Sumerian orthography, this is a perfectly correct spelling of a name pronounced
Ku=’a(r) (cf. my remarks on non-expression of final -fc in A 18 No. 6 , pp. 17 f., also n. 115 above
on En-me-kar/En-me(r)-kar) abbreviated from older Ku^ar(a). The writing sw-5a-n in CT
XVI, PI. 6 , must be a corruption of fcw(l)- 6 a-n, which would represent a variant pronuncia-
tion {ku?ara>*kuwara>kuhara). The signs m and ku are so similar that a misreading can
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. iii 12-17 89
12 divine Lugal-banda, a shepherd,
reigned 1,200 years;
divine Dumu-zi(d), a .^^®—
15hiscity(was)Ku^a(ra)~
reigned 100 years;
divine Gilgames—
easily have happened. On the situation of the city and its relations with Eridu(g) see n. 5
above. The connection of DumU"Zi(d) with Ku=a(ra) has been dealt with in detail by
Poebel, PM IV 1, p. 121.
127 Thus also P 2 and, as it seems, Sui, where W4 can be restored (100).
128 The hero of the Gilgames epic (see the literature quoted in Albert Schott, Das Gil-
gamesch-Epos [Leipzig, (1934)] pp. 5-10). A separate tale, the last part of which was incorpo-
rated in the Gilgames epic as the twelfth tablet, has been edited (first half only) by Kramer
in Oilgamesh and the ffuluppu-Tree (AS No. 10 [1938]). See the texts there quoted and add
Langdon, BE XXXI, No. 35, and Radau in Hilprecht Anniversary Volume (Leipzig, 1909)
Pis. 13-14, No. 11, which continue the story and give the beginning of Enkidu’s account
of Hades. Another epic text deals with Gilgames' war with Kish through which he liberated
Uruk (see p. 145, n. 20). The ^TOstory of Ebmal” {PBS V, Nos. 6-7 +PM XIII, No. 48; see
Poebel, PBS IV 1, pp, 143-47, and Giiterbock in ZA n.F, VIII 7. On the reading Ebmal
instead of Tummal see Poebel in OLZ XXVII [1924] 263, n. 4, and cf. Landsberger in OLZ
XXXIV [1931] 129) mentions him as builder of the Giparu (written g u (g 4 ) - b u r - r a) of
Enlil in Nippur. A late ruler of Uruk, Anam, states that Gilgames built the city wall of Uruk
{SAK^ p. 222, No. 2 6), As protecting genius Gilgames is mentioned by Utu-hegai {RA IX
[1912] 115 iii 1-3). Ur-Nammu(k) is his *^big brother" {TRB I, No. 12: 112). He is Shulgi’s
“beloved brother" {PBS X 2, No. 6 rev. i 16) or “brother and friend" (Chiera, Sumerian
Texts of Varied Contents [07P XVI (1934)] No. 51 rev. 35). A prayer to him is given
in Paul Haupt, Das bahylonische Nimrodepos {leipzigy 1884) No. 53. A collection of Gil-
games omens has been treated by Zimmern in ZA XXIV (1910) 166-71. They all seem to
derive from the epic (Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 9). He is mentioned in MaqlUj Tablet I,
and an image of him in R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters I (London and Chi-
cago, 1892) No. 56 rev. 5. The name of a certain drug contains his name {KAR^ No. 186
rev. 10; see Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamish [1930] p. 10). Aelian {De natura animalium
xii 21) relates a curious story of how En-me(r)-kar {Z^w^xopos), having been told that his
daughter would bear a son who would seize the kingdom from him, locked the girl in a
tower. But the girl bore a son by an obscure man, and when the guards threw the child
down from the tower an eagle carried him to a garden where the gardener found him and
brought him up. This child was Gilgames. The list of ancient kings contained in the scholia
of Theodore bar Kont (Lewin, Die Scholien des Theodor bar K6ni) mentions Gilgames
vars. and [pp. 2 and 25], reflecting an original
kings from Peleg to Abraham and contemporaneous with
the latter (p. 2, 11. 8-9).
The orthography of the name changes considerably in the various periods of Babylonian
history. The oldest occurrences of the name known to us date from the time of Lugal-anda
and give the writing ‘^Gis-sfL-afN-MES (Allotte de la Fuye in RA VI [1904-7] 124). From
Sargonic times down to the period of Isin and Larsa the standard form becomes
GA-MEs (Sargonic period: Ur-<^Gis-Bli>GA-MES, II316, U 11418; Utu-hegal:
GA-MES, RA IX [1912] 113 iii 1). This writing also occurs in the inscription of Anam
The Sumerian King List
90
WB P 2
Sui
18
a b - b - n i
UP^»-la
WB P 2
Sui
e n
k u 1 - a b - b a - k 64^^^
WB P 2
Stii
20
mu
126133
i - as
WB
Sui
u r u n - g a (var.
ur-lugal)
WB
Sui
d u m u
^gilgames (^giS-bil-ga-mes)
WB
mu
30
i-as
WB
u-dftl-
kalam-ma
WB
25
dumu
u r % u n - g a 1
- k 64^®® (or
ur-lugal-ke 4 )
WB
mu
15
i-as
WB
a - b a
~ a<h? (old lacuna?)) iR^^®
WB
m u
9
i - as
WB
en-nun-dAr a(!)^^^ -an-
n a
WB
30
m u
8
i-as
(SAK, p. 222, No. 2 b) and in the Sumerian fragments of the Gilgames epic (e.g. SEMj
No. 22 obv, 8, No. 26 rev. hi 11; RA XXX [1933] 128-29, 11. 8 and 41) which belong to the
Isin-Larsa period. Other examples from this period are frequent. A writing ^gis-bil>ga-mes
is found in the King List and in the Sumerian version of the epic, PBS X 2, No. 5, and Zim-
mern, Sumerische KultUeder aus althahylonischer Zeit, 2. Reihe (1913) No. 196, from ap-
proximately the period of the 1st dynasty of Babylon. The Akkadian versions from Old
Babylonian times have the abbreviated form ^^gis (Meissner, Em altbahylonisches Fragment
des Gilgamosepos [MV AG VII 1 (1902)]; M. Jastrow' and A. T. Clay, An Old Bahylonian
Version of the Gilgamesh Epic Yale Oriental Series. Researches'^ IV 3 (New Haven, Conn.,
1920)]). In a personal name in a document from Elam (Scheil, MDP XXII, No. 41:1:
puzur-^gis-ga-mas) the name is written <^gis-ga“Mas; later forms are ‘^gis-gim-mas (Hittite
texts: see J. Friedrich in ZA n.F. V 32 f.), ^gal-ga-mi-su-ijl (Hurrian texts: F. Hrozny,
Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi, Heft 6 [WVDOG XXXVI 2 (1921)] No. 33 i 8; Ungnad in
ZA n.F. I [1924] 135); and in Assyrian times we find ^gis-gIn-mas (Ninevite version of
epic), Gis-GfN“MAs-si(?) (CT XII [1901] PI. 50, K4359 obv. 17; cf. Friedrich in ZA n.F.
V 33, n. 2), Gi-iL-QA-ME-ES (T. G. Pinches in Babylonian and Oriental Record IV [1890] 264),
kal-ga-imin (syllabary, CT XVIII [1904] PL 30 iv 6). Post-Assyi'ian forms are VChyapLos
(Aelian, De natura animalium xii 21) and (Theodore bar K6ni; Lewin, loc,
ciL). Further literature may be found in Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 123; Friedrich in ZA n.F.
V 32 f.; Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamisk (1930) pp. 8 f.
129 Thus also P 2 . Sui omits.
130 Thus in all probability P 2 also. The photograph in PBS V, PL XC, seems to have
^(?) “ Oir. PoebeFs copy gives ff# - a-L .L The conclusions drawn by W. Fortsch
in OLZ XVIII (1915) 367-69, based on this reading, should therefore be abandoned.
131 Thus with R. Campbell Thompson, who in this 1 i 1 - 1 d, sees Sumerian 111-14,
Akkadian UM, “the demon equivalent to a male vampire. There are four demons of this
class—the idlu lilt, the ardat lilt, the and the lilUu. The ardat lilt is well known as the
female vampire or succuba who visits men by night and bears him[l] ghostly children: the
idlu lili must be her male counterpart who can visit women and beget offspring by them,
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. iii 18-30
91 '
18 Msfather (was)aKIM«demoE^®^^—
a high priest of Kullab,
20 reigned 126 years;
Ur-Nungal(ak) (var. tJr-lugal(ak)),
son of divine Gilgames,
reigned 30 years;
Utul-kalamma(k),
25 son of Ur-Nungal(ak) (or Ur«liigal(ak)),
reigned 15 years;
Laba. . .
reigned 9 years;
En-nun-dara«Anna (k)
30 reigned 8 years;
just as demigods are created” {The Epic of Gilgamuh [1930] p. 9). Thompson rightly com-
pares the ^'obscure man” in the story of Aelian (see n. 128 above) and the statement in the
epic that Gilgames was 2/3 god and 1/3 mortal, which seems to show that neither of his
parents was fully mortal. Langdon {OECT II 12, n. 3) translates H 1 - 1 d as ‘^fool, im-
becile” and considers it possible ^'that lil4a is really a title of Tammuz who in the Louvre
hymn, RA. 19, 175-185 is called nm4u4U, ^the fool god,^ and that Tammuz is really the
father of Gilgamis here.” This combination seems doubtful. Gilgames is generally consid-
ered son of the goddess Ninsun (thus in the Utu-heial inscription, RA IX 113, and in the
Ninevite version of the epic; see Poebel, FB8 IV 1, pp. 124 f., and in OLZ XVII [1914]
4r-6), who was the wife of Lugal-banda (Deimei, Pantheon bdbylofiicum [Romae, 1914]
No. 2701).
^32 A quarter of XJruk (cf. Thureau-Dangin in RA IX 119), originally probably a separate
city. It seems likely that it was the quarter around the main temple, E-Anna(k) (see Zim-
mern in ZA n.F. V 258, where E-Anna(k) is styled A me-gal kullab^^-a, ‘‘Tera-
pel, mit den grossen Ordnungen, in Kuliab”).
Thus also P 2 . Sui has Fr Hf ; but t is in aU probability merely due to the stylus having
slipped, so that we can read here also IT t (126).
134- 134 - 1 u g a 1 . In the ^^History of Ebmal” also {PBS V, No. 6 obv. 5) the name
appears as [u]r-lugal. The variant is clearly due to mishearing when the text was
dictated to a copyist. A similar mistake, which must likewise be due to mishearing in dic-
tation, is mentioned in n. 146 below. We cannot say which form is original.
135- 13B gee n, 134.
136- 136 Langdon^s rendering of the third sign as § e (^) and his spacing of the signs in
his copy are not correct. The photograph shows The third sign looks like
an incomplete a ^ ; and, since the large blank after it suggests a lacuna in the scribe's
original, our line may render
^37 According to the photograph the sign is i.e., d^ra (cf. Charles Fossey,
Manuel d’assyriologte II 1 [Paris, 1926] No. 7919).
92
The Sumerian King List
WB
31
m u 36 i- as
WB
Sua
139m e-lam-an - n
WB
Sua
mu
i- as
WB
Sua
1 u g a 1 - ki - 1 u mu 36^^^ i - ag
WB
Sua
35
12 lugal
WB
Sua
mu-bi 2,310i«
i b - as
WB
Sua
u n u g“ u k u 1
ba-an-sig
WB P2
Sua
nam-lugal-bi
u r «• § h
WB Pa
b a - t d m
WB Pa
Sua
u r 1*“ - m a
WB Pa
Sua
40
mes-an-n^-p^-d a^*^
WB Pa
lugal-^m mu ^^^80 (emend to 80— *?)
i - Rg
41a {a-an-ne-pd-^a
138- 138 Langdon reads sul3^u§-]^4"d4, but a royal name meaning 'May he de-
stroy the foundation'^ is not very likely. The photograph seems to have for the
first sign, which looks more like or ‘’dup'* than like subR§* We therefore read
provisionally s i m u g , "MEs(?)-|ji, a smith."
139- 159 gu 2 has here i.e., t i - kil . It is not impossible that this has developed
out of an original m e - 1 4 m - a n - n a through a badly damaged version [m e - 1 ^ m -]
in which ^ (a n) and ^ (the front part of n a) were read together as one sign,
MK (t i), and separated from ^ (the remainder of n a), which was read as k ti . That the
original of Sua was indeed seriously damaged at this place can be seen from the fact that
its formula X mu i-as changes to mu x i-a 5 just after the reign of ti-kU, which can
only mean that here the copyist had to use a different source to fill in a lacuna in his original.
Sua has 900! See n. 143 below.
Photograph:
142 Sus: W (7), read as 4201 See n. 143.
143 This total agrees with the sum of the single reigns if we restore the broken figure
for Mes-kiag-gasher as 324 (see n. 110 above). Sua has the total 3,588 years. This is cor-
rect if we restore the first ten reigns, now missing in Sua, according to the figures given in
WB and add the very lugh reigns of the last two rulers which are preserved in Sua.* [324-|-
420+1, 200+100+126+30+15+9+8+361+900+420 =3,588. There can, of course, be
no doubt that WB's reasonable figures for these two reigns, 6 and 36, which agree with the
historical character of the other reigns in the last half of this dynasty, represent a better
form of the text than the 900 and 420 years given in Sua.
144 This writing is found also in Mes-Anne-pada's seal inscription (UE II, PL 191,
U 13607), in the seal inscription of his wife (UET I, No. 268), in the inscription of his son
A-Anne-pada (UE I, PL XL, T[ell] 0[beid] 160), and in the list of names in PBS XI 1,
No. 25 obv. In the late text BM 56488 rev. iv 11-16: Mtu M i-pu-su
na-on-na IchqUit zi-i-ri v^4al~pit^ "The house which the divine Mes-Anne-pada had built
did Nanna, the 'seed-gatherer,' destroy (?)" (Meissner in ZA VII [1892] 29; G. Dossin in
RA XXII [1925] 115-17 ; Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 8, who rightly suggests that the pic-
ture of birds picking up seed in a field underlies the expression zlra laqatu)^ the name is
written with the determinative for god.
Ceitical' Edition oethe Text,, Coe, iii' 31-41#
93
, 31' MEs(?)-ii, a;smith, reigiiecl36years;.
Melam-Anna(k)
reigned 6 years;
Lugal-ld4un(?) reigned 36 years.
35 12 kings
reigned its 2,310 years.
Uruk was smitten with weapons ;
its kingship to Ur
was carried.
In Ur
40 Mes-Anne-pada
became king and reigned 80 (emend
to 80— a;?)^'*^years;
41a (A-Anne-pada,
146-145 Yhis surprisingly high figure probably represents—as pointed out by Gadd in
UE I 128 — a conflation of two reigns, that of Mes-Anne-pada himself and that of Ins son
A-Anne-pada. We may assume that an original text
mes-an-ne - pa-da
lugal-^m mu 80 —x i-as
[a - a n - n (5 - p a - d a
dumu]mes-an-ne-pa-da
m u X l-as
broken as here indicated became
mes-an-nA-p^-da
lugal-Am mu 80— x i-as
m e s -an-n^-pu-da
m u X i - as
in the next copy and that a still later copyist, who did not realize that the blank space
stood for a lacuna, added up the two reigns which both seemed to be assigned to Mes-Anne-
pada. ' ■■ ■
A-Anne-pada is known from his own inscriptions {UE 1 126 f.), where his name is written
a-an-n6-p5.-da and where he designates himself as son of Mes-Anne-pada. Accord-
ing to the ^^story of EbmaF^ {PBS V, Nos. 6--7+PBN XIII, No. 48), he built the park
(g i r ii 2 - m a h) of Enlil in Nippur. His name is there written [a n - n] a - n d {PBS V,
No. 6 obv. 9), an-na-n4 {ibid. 1. 10), and n a - a n - n d {PBS XIII, No. 48 ii 2). (It
has been suggested that in BM 56488 rev. iv 13 quoted above [n. 144] his name appears
as na-an-na. More likely, however, na-an-na there stands for Nanna, the god of Ur; for
Idqit zlri is an epithet which it is natural to apply to a deity, not to a mortal.) It is not im-
probable that these short forms of the name derive ultimately from the King List, more
exactly from the point in the tradition of that list when the lacuna mentioned above had
begun to form: a-an-n^-[p^-da] > a-an-n4, i.e., a ^ a n n e , which by as-
similation of 3 to the following n would become a n a n n e . On the forms an-na-ne
and na-an-n5 see Gadd in Studia Orientalia I (1925) 25 f. and UE I 130. Gadd con-
siders them ^^slightly different echoes of the ill-remembered A-anni-(padda).^^ Cf, also Poebel
in OLZ XXVII (1924) 263.
94
The Sumeeian King List
416 dumu mes-an-ne-pd-da
41c 7nu X
WB
P 2
mes-ki-ag
„146
anna^^®
(emend to
-nun-n a)
WB
P 2
u m u
m e s
- a n - n d ■
-p^-dai«
WB
u g a 1 - a
WB
Pa
Li
45
mu
30149
i - as
Col. iv
Pa
Li
[e - 1 u - 1 u
m u
25
i-as]
Pa
Li
[b a - 1 u - 1 u
m u
36
1 - as]
Pa
U
[4 lugaip"^
Pa
Li
[mu-bi
1 b - as]
Pa
Li
5
[u r 1 ^' ^Hukul
b a
. - a n - s i g]
Pa
[n a m - 1 u g a
1 -U
a - w
a - a -1^]
Pa
\ba-t'0,m]
Pa
[a - w a - a «
■na]
[. . . .
lugal-hm]
10
[mu
r 1
i-as]
WB
m u
[.
i-a&\
k u u 1 - [ ]
WB
mu
36
[^-ffls]
WB
(P 2 )
15
3 [lugal]
WB(P2)
mu-bi
3''56^i“
[tfe-as]
WB
a - w a - a
^^^tukul 6a- a] n - s i g
146- 146 Pg; -nun-na. As shown by an inscription of the ruler himself, U 11(375
(Burrows in UE II 321, n. 10) : [m e s - k] i - d [g] - n u n 1 u g a 1 u r , P 2 has pre-
served the original text: mes-ki-dg-nun-na. The form of WB, mes-ki-dg-
a n n a , must be due to mishearing in dictation (for a similar case of mishearing see
n. 134 above). The ‘^tory of Ebmal” also (PBB V, No. 6 obv. 10; PBS XIII, No.
48 ii 1) has the erroneous mes-ki-dg-'^nanna, whereas the Nippur list of proper
names (Chiera, PBS XI 1, No. 25 obv.) gives both forms, m e s k i - d g - ^[n a n n a]
and mes-ki-ag-nun-n[a]. For a different solution of the problem see Poebel in
OLZ XXVII 264. We consider the one here offered (cf. also n, 147) more probable.
147- 147 Thus also P 2 . The ^Tlistory of EbmaF' (PBS V, No. 6 obv. 10; PBS XIII, No.
48 ii 1-2) has this ruler as son of A-Anne-pada (an-na-ne,na-an-nd). It is prob-
able that the King List originally had a-. an-n6-pd-da here and got m e s - a n -
ne-pd-daby dittography from the lines above. Cf. n. 148.
148- 148 P 2 omits, which is obviously correct* The lugal-dm of WB must be due to
dittography from mes-an-nd-pd-da lugal-dm above.
Critical Edition op the Text, Cols, iii 416— iv 17
95
415 son of Mes-Anne-pada,
41c reigned a: years;)
Mes-kiag-Nanna(k) (emend to
kiag~nunna(k)),
son of Mes-Anne-pada,
became king and
45 reigned 36 years;
Col. iv
Elulu reigned 25 years;
Balulu reigned 36 years.
4 kings
reigned its 177 years.
5 Ur was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to Awan^^^
was carried.
In Awan
.... became king
10 and reigned .. years;
reigned . . years;
Kul
reigned 36 years.
15 3 kings
reigned its 356 years.
Awan was smitten with weapons;
P 2 : 30. Thus, in all probability, Li also, for it has the same total for the dynasty as
has P 2 . We must consider the text of WB original; for while (36) can easily develop
into ^ (30) through a slightly broken text: the opposite development would be dif-
ficult to account for.
If the argument of n. 145 is accepted, this line must originally have read 5, not 4.
^^°P 2 : (171); Li: i.e., Wf (171). This total agrees with the sum of the single
reigns given in P 2 . Since Mes-kiag-nunna(k) has there a reign of 30 years whereas WB
gives him 36 years, we must assume that WB’s total was six units higher, i.e., 177 years,
151 Awan was situated in Elam not far from Susa. See Unger and Ebeling in RLA I
324 and the literature quoted there.
i5‘i The figure of WB is damaged. The traces left show in the photograph as ^ which
we read as (3^56^). Langdon's rendering of the traces in OECT II, PL II, does
not agree with what can be seen in the photograph. P 2 gives in the final summaries (xi
18-21) 356 years for Awan.
96
The Stjmbeian King List
WB
18
nam-1
ugal-bi
WB
3 e
[ba4um]
20
k i s
SUg-I ]
WB
1 u g a 1 -
am
WB
mu
201[+xi53
i-tti]
WB
da-da-
-si g mu
[. .
i-ai]
WB
a-ma-gal -
(emend
to ma-
gal-gal - T [md
WB
25
m u
360[+ x(?)^
157
i-Bs]
WB
ka-al-
b u
WB
dumu
ma-gal - gal-
■^la’ [?]
WB
mu
195
WB
sk-e
mu 360
WB
30
gI+sub-
■ nun-na mu
180
i-as
WB
- e n 1
) i-n i(?) -ib(?) ■
• e §4(?) •
- T d, rii®®
WB
mu
290(?)^®^
i-as
WB
Li
^®Tuga]
1-mu^®^ mu
360“^
i - a6
WB
Li
8^^^ lu g a
,1
WB
Li
35
m u - b i
3,195^^4 (var.
3,792)
1 [b - as]
WB
Lx
k i §
s'H u k u 1
b a -
an - s i g
WB
Lx
n a m - 1
Qgal-bi
WB
Li
li a- m a
- z s e
b
a - 1 li m
153 jjhM, i.e., 201 less than 5).
154-164 The name appears asmd,**gal-gal-0a’’ below in I. 27. That this is the cor-
rect form is shown by an omen which refers to this king (A. Boissier, Choix de textes rela-
tifs d la divination assyro-habylonienne I [Geneve, 1905] 47, Nos. 17-18): w4(see Boissier,
n. lioygahgal^^malahlyu m kis-m-tam ina libhi dli-m Jiu-nl-la-M i-'^du-iik'^-m, ^'Ma-
galgal, the skipper, who exercised emperorship; in the midst of his city a . . . .-snake
lain is a synonym of nis qaqqari [AH, pp. 440 f.j, which according to the Gilgames epic,
Tablet XI 296, seems to be a [general or specific?] term for a snake) killed him.” The name
m£-gai-gal is obviously identical with m4-gal-gal or Id-md-gai-gal
(SL, No. 122.59), a term for a special kind of sailor or skipper,
156 Photograph has i.e., 0 a^ .
15® Since Magalgal in the omen quoted above (n. 154) is designated as m d - 1 a (wa-
kj^w), *%kipper,” we should probably restore this word in the lacuna after his name,
15^ iff s u - s i [ ] = 3604-:r {x less than 60).
15® This restoration was suggested by Langdon (OECT II 14).
159-169 The line gives no sense as it stands and is clearly corrupt. We have assumed that
it represents an effort on the part of the scribe to render as exactly as he could a damaged
original which he did not understand: i"enbi“*“ii*-es 4 “tdr . See the detailed discus-
sion on p. 169 and cf. the paraUei cases in cols, ii 28 (n. 85 above) and vii 31 (n. 291
below), where an original gloss has similarly worked down into the line.
Critical Edition op the Text, Col. iv 18-38 97
18 its kingship
to Kish was carried.
20 InKishSu. . . .
became king
and reigned 201 +x years;
Dadasig reigned .. years;
Mamagalla (emend to Magalgalla),
a skipper(?)/®®
25 reigned 360 +a;(?) years;
Kalbum,
son of Magalgalla,
reigned 195 years;
Sk-e reigned 360 years;
30 Gi+suB-nun-na reigned 180 years;
Enbi-Eshtar(?)
reigned 290(?) years;
Lugalmu reigned 360 years.
8 kings
35 reigned its 3,195 (var. 3,792) years.
Kish was smitten with weapons;
its kingship
to HamazP®® was carried.
figure, as given in OE€T llj PL II, is inconsistent with the Sumerian
numerical system and cannot be correct. In the photograph the figure shows as ,
which makes quite clear what has happened. The scribe by accident wrote the third -<-
wedge of the upper row so close to the second that the latter was practically blotted out,
and he therefore added a new, clear wedge. The figure is therefore meant to represent 290.
161-161 Langdon (OECT II 6) translates 1 u g a 1 - m u as '^a king by name” and sug-
gests that it is *^a substitute for a name which our late compiler did not know.” L u g a 1 -
m u could indeed be the remnant of a copyist^s note, lugal mu nu-tuk, ^'^a king
without name” (cf. vii 28, to which Langdon also refers) ,* but, since lu gal-mu is a
well attested Sumerian name (see e.g. the instances listed by Schneider in Orientalia No. 23
[1927] p. 156, No. 2165, and cf. also the following names which begin with lugal- mu-),
it seems simpler to assume that there actually was a king of Kish by that name.
Thus apparently Li also, where ^ can be restored as .
Thus apparently Li also, where W can be restored as W,
Li: 3,792. It is impossible to say which is the more correct.
165 Li: - z i - ,
166 The city is mentioned in the inscription of Utuk (SAKf p, 160), who styles himself
“defeater of Hamazi” (gIn-se jh a - m a - z i^9- People from Hamazi are frequently men-
tioned in texts of the Agade period from Nuzi (T. J. Meek, Excavations at Nuzi .... III.
Old Akkadianj Sumerian^ and Cappadocian Texts from Nuzi [“Harvard Semitic Series” X
98
; The Sumebian King List
WB Li
39 ha-ta-ni-iS
Li
^9a{lugahkmy^^
WB Li
40 mu (emend to 6?)
(probably old lacuna here)^^^
WB(P2)
1 (emend to 1+x?)^^ l u g a 1
WBCPs)
mu-bi (emend to 6+x?)
fb^^^-as
WB
h.a-ma-zi^" s'^tukul ba-an-sig
WB Su3
nam-lugal-bi unu - § k b a-
tiim
(Cambridge, Mass., 1935)] Nos. 143:15, 153 iii 25, 154 ii 10, and 155 v 8); the name is in
all cases written a - m a - z During the period of the 3d dynasty of Ur a certain
Ur-Ishkur(ak) is known as isha/c/cu of Hamazi (Langdon, Tablets from the Archives of Dre-
hmi [Paris, 1911] No. 53), The name of the city is in this period most often written a -
m a - z (Langdon, he. ciL; H. de Genouillac, La trouvaille de Drekem [Paris, 1911] No.
69). As ha-ma-zi^^ (var. h.a-^m-zi^0 it also occurs in the inscription of Arad-
Nanna(k), sukkal-mah of Shu-Sin of Ur, who styles himself ‘‘ishakku of Hamazi
and Ganhar.’^ The older writing ij a- “ ha-s not completely disappeared, how-
ever, for an unpublished text quoted by Forrer in RLA 1 231, which seems to date from
shortly after the 3d dynasty of Ur, has it, and a copy of a historical(?) inscription from
the Isin-Larsa period (Chiera, Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents [OIP XVI (1934)] No. 98
obv. 6) also refers to the city as h a - m a - z i^^ (m a - d a a - m a - z [i^*] ) . Hamazi
seems to have lost all importance toward the end of the Isin-Larsa period, for as far as I
know it is never referred to in later texts. Since it is mentioned by Arad-Nanna(k) in
close connection with Ganhar and since people from Hamazi appear in texts from Nuzi,
it should without doubt be located in the mountainous region east of Kirkuk, near modern
Sulaimaniyyah.
■■ ^Lr.-z ii=i-a .
Probably abbreviation of a longer name such as *?patdnis-qabt^ ^^He (a god) prom-
ises to protect” (on -is with infinitive see W. von Soden in ZA n.F. VII [1933] 105 ff.).
This ruler is mentioned — somewhat unexpectedly — ^in the famous list of gods an: ^an-nu-
um (cf. Hommel in ZA n.F. II [1925] 82). The section in question reads:
IS’^lum-ma sit Lumma, pronounced as
written;
19 ^ 1 d, - n i - i [§] [s]u min utuk 4-kur-ra-ke4 Hatanish, pronounced as
written; both manes of
E-kur.
20^en-lil-id-z[il nu-bdnda 5-kur-ra-ke4 Enlilia(k)-zi(d), laputtu
of E-kur,
21%r-%in-na nimgir 5§-bar-ra-*'ke4’‘ Ur-Sina(k), of Esh-
barra.
Text: CT XXIV (1908) PL 6:18-21. Variants: (1) CT XXV, PL 28, Bu 89-4-26, 77:3,
<*1 u m - b a / m a ; (2) ibid. 1. 5 adds -dm after min; (3) in CT XXIV, PL 22, the
explanatory note beginning with min runs from 1. 116, which deals with ^Lumma, down
to 1. 117, which deals with <^Hatanish. The prototype of an: ^an-nu-um, AO 5376, published
Critical Edition of the Text, Col, iv 39-44
99
39 In Hamazi Hatanish^®^
39a (became king and)
40 reigned 6X60 (emend to 6?) years;
(probably old lacuna here)
1 king (emend to 1+x kings?)
reigned its 6X60 (emend to 6+x"}) years.
Hamazi was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to Uruk was carried.
by de Genouillac in RA XX (1923) 98 f. and TRS I, Pis. XXV-XXXI, which seems to date
back to the Isin period, also contains our section; obv. ii 4~7 (in RA = 11. 53-56 in TRS')
reads: ^lum-ma ^en-Hl-ld~zi ^r-'^sin.
How Hatanish, a conqueror from Hamazi, came to be included in the official Sumerian
pantheon is fairly clear from the list itself, which styles <^Hatanish a herds, literally “ghost”
(u t u k), of E-kur, That the ghosts, the manes, of Hatanish and of Lumma (better known
under his other name, E-Anna(k)-tum; see Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 166) were worshiped in
the Enlil temple in Nippur can only mean that these kings had erected statues of them-
selves there, providing for offerings to the statues and thereby to their manes after they
died. The passage is thus of some historical importance, since this would seem to imply
that Hatanish actually possessed Nippur. On the following two deities, Enlilia(k)-zi(d)
and Ur-Stna(k), who also seem to be deified human beings, see Landsberger, Der kultische
Kalender, p. 28, n. 13. Concerning cult of the manes of deceased kings compare the lists of
offerings to statues of Ur-Nanshe(k), En-temena, Lugal-anda, etc. published by Deimel in
Orientalia No. 28 (1928) pp. 25 ff. ITT IV, No. 7310 rev. i 26-28, mentions offerings to a
statue of Gudea. Of. also Deimel, “Die Listen fiber den Ahnenkult aiis der Zeit Lugalandas
und Urukaginas,” Orientalia No. 2 (1920) pp. 32-51.
Li adds [1 u g a 1] “ a m , “became king,” which is obviously correct. The omission
of this phrase in WB must be due to accident.
Thus according to the photograph; since §u-si is in small script, which shows
it to be a gloss, the original probably read 6. The figure is not preserved in Lj. Cf.
::n.l73.": .
Thus according to the photograph; the additional ib in Langdon^s copy is
erroneous.
i72Seen. 174.
Thus according to the photograph; since §u-§i is written in small script, which
shows it to be a gloss (cf. n. 170), the original probably had 6. P2 gives in its final sum-
mary one king and V?? (7 or 420) years for Hamazi. We have no opinion as to whether the
HF of WB or the W of P2 is original.
^^^Thus according to the photograph; the i- of Langdon^s copy is erroneous. The
collective i b - as , remnant of an earlier form of this total operating with more than one
king, indicates that part of the Hamazi dynasty has been lost in a lacuna sometime in
the course of tradition. Cf. pp. 25 and 50 f . for similar cases in Sux and SU5+4.
100
The SuMEBiAN King List
WB
Sus
45
u n “ g
eii-iakA^iJ«-§a4
- an-
n a
WB
SUs
lugal-im
mu 1 § u
i - as
WB
Sus
a m - 1 u g a
1-bi mu 2
§u-§i
i - as
WB
mu
7179
i - asi^'s
(Emend IL 47-48 to
read
47a
lugal-ki-ni-se-duT-du^
476
mu x+2 i-as
47c
lugal-Msahsi
ild
dumu lugal-hi-
-ni-Se-du7-dv/r
48a
mu x+7 i-as
(P2)
486
3 lugal
48c
mvrbi . . ib-
as)
Col. V
Sui
'^^%unug^^ ^'"Hukul
ba-
■arirsig]
Sui
[nam4ugaUbi
b a-
t d m]
Sui
[u r i^^-ma
lugal-ki-ni-l
e - d U7
-dU 7 ]
Sui
[lugal- k m
mu
.
i-as]
Sui
5
[lugalr k i s a 1
-si]
Sui
[dumu Zw g a 1
U7]
Sui
[mu
. ...
i-asl
Sui
gi 4 (?)]
Sui
[m u
. . '
i-as]
Sui
10
[ka(?)-kil]
WB
Sui
[dumu
• - g 14]
-fkeii
WB
Sui
[m u
• .
i]
- ras^iso
WB
Sui
[4]i8i lugal
WB
mu-bi
I 116 ]i»i
lb- as
15
[uri^^
«^Huhul
ha-
-an-st^]
L:
L
[namr-lugal4)i
a d a b a*^^ - § 6
b a -
tdm]
”'Su 5 + 4 : -a*.
On this reading of the sign and on the identification of this ruler with En-shakush-An-
na(k) see p. 171.
The figure is not preserved in SU 3 + 4 .
178-178 The text of WB is badly corrupted here: nam-lugal-bi belongs to the
formula for change of dynasty; m u 2 (120) i-as and mu 7 l-ag are from formu-
las for single reigns. Apparently the scribe has given a few disconnected passages still read-
able in a much broken original. The damage is old, as shown by Sus+ 4 : I ]-an-d4-a
; Cbitical Editioh of the Text,. Com iv 45 ,— v ;16, •
45 In Uruk En-shakush“Anna(k)(?)
became king and reigned 1 X 60 years ;
its kingship; reigned 2X60 years;
reigned 7 years.
(Emend 11. 47-48 to read
47a Lugal-kinishe-dudu
476 reigned iC+2 years;
47c Lugal-kisal-si,
47d son of Lugal-kinishe-dudu,
48a reigned a;+7 years.
486 3 kings
48c reigned its .. years.)^’^^
Col. V
Uruk was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to Ur was carried.
In Ur Lugal-kinishe-dudu
became king and reigned . . years;
5 Lugal-kisal-si,
son of Lugal-kinishe-dudu,
reigned . . years;
■ ■ , . . .'.gi ■ , .
reigned . . years;
10 Ka-ku(g),
son of . . . .gi,
reigned . . years.
4 kings
reigned its years.
15 Ur was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to Adab was carried.
[ l-as [ iu]gal, which can be restored [il-gu ba]-an-d4-a [..mu ij-as
[. . 1 u] g a i . . , . , ^'Somebody who has disappeared reigned . . years. . . kings ''
See the detailed discussion of the passage on pp. 169-72.
179 Thus according to the photograph (cf. Langdon^s translation),
180-180 Yhe restoration of this section is based on the traces left in Sui. See the detailed
discussion of the section on pp. 175 f.
Kestored on the basis of the dynasty total, which can be reconstructed in Pa. Bee
pp. 173-75.
102
The StJMERiAN King List
Li
17
[ad a
b a'‘‘ I u g a 1 -
an-n*
S - m
u-
un
-du]
Li
[lug
a 1 - ^ m m d 90^®^
1-
as]
(probably old lacuna
here)^®^
WB
Lr
[1] (emend to 1+x?)^^^ lug
al
WB
Li
20
[m u-
- b i 9]0i«®
i bi8«-
■as
WB
Li
[a da
, b a'^'] u k u 1
ba-a
. n - s
Ig
WB
Li
Sui
[n a m - 1 u g a 1 - b] i ;
a - e r i'
US7
b a
- 1 li m
WB
Lx
SUx
[m a-
- e r
a n-
su d
189
4
WB
Lx
Sux
[lug
a 1 - a m] mu
30
i-
■ as
WB
Lx
25
[?190^ ,
z i] d u m u a
n - s u
dx-ls
: e,4
WB
[mu
^7(?)]191
i-
* as
WB
[ ]-
lugal mu
30
1-
• as
WB
[
'-lu-gal mu
20
i-
•as
WB
[ ]-
^b i"* -MUS 4 -MAS mu
30
i-
■ as
WB
30
[ ]-
n i mu
9
1-
as
WB
^6"^ lugal
WB
[mvAfi] 136 i^®®(emend to
ib)-
•as
WB
ba-a
. n - s
ig
WB
[nam-
lugal] - b i
adds - a .
x^o copies of an inscription of this ruler are known (Poebel, Babylonian Legal and
Business Documents .... Chiefly from Nippur [BB VI 2 (1909)] No. 130, p. 123 and PL 57;
PBS V, No. 75; transliteration and translation by Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII [1934]
40-46). They were written in the reigns of Ammi-gaduqa and Abi-Eshuh. The text deals
with the building of the temple of Nintu in Adab, d-nam-zu, and of the establish-
ing of oiferings and rites of this temple. Giiterbock (op* ciL pp. 46 f.) is of the opinion
that this inscription is a late literary composition. This seems possible but is far from cer-
tain. The name is written lugal-an-na-mu-un-dfl (PBS V, No. 75) and
lugal-fan^-nd-mu-un-du (BE VI 2, No. 130), whereas the King List (Li) has
lugal-an-nd-mu-un-dh .
184 See n. 186.
18& which can be restored (90) ; Lj: 90.
186 Thus in both WB and Li; it would therefore seem to be original. But if the collective
form of the verb is old, we can assume that the dynasty originally had more rulers than
Lugal-Anne-mundu and that the others have been lost in the course of tradition. Langdon
also (OECT II 5) considers it probable that this dynasty once comprised several kings.
187-187 xhus also Li; Sui places the dynasty of Maeri after Akshak and apparently before
Kish III + IV. Since the order of WB is represented in both the A branch (WB) and the
B branch (Li) of the tradition, we must consider it original. That the city name should be
read m a - e r i^' rather than m a - r has been shown by Thureau-Dangin in RA XXXI
(1934) 83 f.
Critical Edition op the Text, Col. y 17-34
,103
17 In Adab Lugal-Anne-mundu^^®
became king and reigned 90 years;
(probably old lacuna here)
1 king (emend to 1+a; kings?)
20 reigned its 90 years.
Adab was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to Maeri was carried.
To (emend to In) Maeri Ansud
became king and reigned 30 years;
25 . . . .zi, son of Ansud,
reigned 17 (?) years;
... .-lugal reigned 30 years;
....“ 111 -gal reigned 20 years;
... .bi“MU§rMAS reigned 30 years;
30 ... .ni reigned 9 years.
6 kings
reigned its 136 years.
Maeri was smitten with weapons;
its kingship
Li: - a ; Sui omits. The -§ h of WB is erroneous, due to dittography of m a - e r -
sh in the line above.
189 The sign is bu in WB and Li; Sui is too broken to allow a decision. Contrary to
Landsberger (OLZ XXXIV [1931] 127) a variant an-sijd on which he bases his reading
does not occur in the King List. It seems, however, to appear elsewhere; for the traces
on the macehead U 11678 can only be those of lu[gal] (see the photograph,
UE II, PL 183 e, which gives Burrows in UE II 322 read ^a n - b
T u g a r ; the catalogue, ibid. p. 572, apparently "^^^u t u’*). In the inscription of this king^s
daughter (UET I, No. 12) his name is written an-bu. The same variation between bu and
sun met with in this name occurs also in z i - U 4 “ S ii d - r a (see Poebel, PBS IV 1,
p. 49). Since the Greek transliterations ISt<roudpoj, Xt(rou??pos, Stcrtdpos, etc. show that this
name was pronounced Zi(u)sudra, we must assume that bu had the value sud4. As
shown by the writing an-sud inU 11678, bu has this value in the name under discussion,
and we have therefore adopted the reading a n - s u d4 .
Only one sign seems to be missing before -zi . Legrain^s copy gives which could
be remnants of g a z .
The figure is not preserved in any of the versions. Our restoration of 17 is arrived
at by subtraction of the reigns preserved from the dynasty total.
is preserved in the lacuna before -Id-.
Error for i b
104
The Sumerian King List
WB
35
■ ba-
tiim
WB
S
SU3
[kiSiki X95
1
1
b ae'®®
WB
S
Sus
197jmu,oJ _ k
urun]
-B 1
i197
WB
s
Sua
[s U 1) u
ki§i]w
m 11 -
u n - g - n a
WB
s
SU3
u g a 1] -
m
u
lOO^o®
i - as
WB
40
1 1
ug
al
WB
mu-bi
100
i - as
WB
k i §
u k
ul
b a - a n
- s i g
194
p.,
Li, and Sui also must have
had this arrangement. '
The
fact
that F2 lists four
dynasties of Kish (xi S-S) means that it must have counted Ku(g)-Baba as a separate
dynasty. Li has after the dynasty of Akshak a dynasty of Kish beginning with Ku(g)-
Baba’s son, Puzur-Sfn, just as in WB; here also Ku(g)-Baba must have been counted as
a separate dynasty preceding Akshak. In Sui, finally, the dynasty total giving 7 rulers
(vi 8) shows that it had a Puzur-Stn dynasty as in WB, i.e., that Ku(g)-Baba must have
been listed separately, A different arrangement is found in S and SU3+4, where Ku(g)-Baba
has been moved down after Akshak and appears as first ruler of the dynasty which in the
other versions begins with her son.
Since the arrangement with KuCg)-Baba as a separate dynasty before Akshak is attested
in both main branches of the tradition (A branch: WB; B branch: P2, Li, and Sui), it should
be original, and this is also shown by a consideration of the variant itself. The arrangement
found in WB, P2, Li, and Sui can very easily have been changed in the course of tradition to
that of S and SU3+4, for it is obvious that any copyist who noted that in his original Ku(g)-
Baba was separated from her son by a complete dynasty would feel a strong urge to correct
this absurdity and move her down to join her son and his successors. While a development
from the arrangement of WB, Pa, Li, and Sui to that of S and SU3+4 would thus be very
natui’al, it is clearly impossible to imagine that any copyist should have changed the plau-
sible-looking arrangement in the latter texts to that of WB etc. It is therefore clear that
WB, P2, Li, and Sui are original on this point.
As we shall see below (p. 177), the author of the King List arrived at his curious arrange-
ment because he possessed a synchronism showing that the dynasty of Akshak was roughly
contemporaneous with Ku(g)-Baba; and the quite unbelievable reign which he has assigned
to that ruler, 100 years, was meant to carry her across the 99 years of the Akshak dynasty
down to the time of her son (first realized by Langdon, OECT II 7). See also the discussion
of this variant on pp. 53 f.
S adds - a ; Su 3+4 adds - a4 .
This queen is mentioned in the list of postdiluvian rulers ^^not arranged in order”
given in V E 44 i 14, and her name is there translated %a-ha^ el4itf ‘‘Baba is bright” (Poebel,
PBS IV 1, pp. 129 f., rejects — ^hardly with right — ^this translation and suggests that the
name means “silver of Baba”). An omen (CT XXVIII [1910] PI. 6, K 766:2-3) refers
to ^kii-%a’‘baz sa mata i-be-lui, “The woman Ku(g)-Baba who ruled the land.” An anecdote
concerning her and Puzur-Nirah of Akshak is related in Chronicle Weidner (see Giiterbock
in ZA n.F. VIII 51 and 54). We have retained for the name of the goddess %A“tj the
reading ‘^b a - b ae suggested by Jensen in Thureau-Dangin, Les homophones sumeriens
(Paris, 1929) p. 40, although Thureau-Dangin in RA XXXII (1935) 150 has advocated a
reading of the last sign as b us . The passages in favor of reading b us , namely phonetic
renderings such as % a - b u , are all late and can (as stated in Les homophones sumSrienSf
p. 40) represent an Akkadianized iona BaMf BcM, derived from Sumerian Baba like
105
■ : Ceitical/Eb
35 to Kish was carried.
In Kish Ku(g)-Baba;
a barmaid/^®
the one who consolidated the foundation of Kishj®^^
became-'king^' and reigned 100 years.
40 Iking
reigned its 100 years.
Kish was smitten with weapons;
Mamdj Mam% from M a m a . The reading b ae , on the other hand, has the support of
a phonetic writing dating back to the Isin period, namely SRT^ No. 5 rev. 41-43: d r
mU“ti-in-na~§A di-di-d^ ba-ba ga-ba-h^l“*h^l“l 6 -en-dd-en
. , . . % a - b as SAL - ia-ma-ke4-e§ ga-ba-h^l-b^l-le-en-d^-en, ^^Go-
ing toward the embrace of the husband, 0 Baba, we will rejoice; O Baba, on aecoimt of
my .... we will rejoice,’' where ba-ba in i. 41 obviously corresponds to ^b a - b a®
in 1.43.
197-197 Thus both S and 8113 + 4 . It is not impossible that WB had muio-kurun-
n a, which is a better form (see Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 129, n. 4.); cf. n. 199.
Lit., '^a wine-woman.” We have adopted Barton’s translation {EISA^ p. 343) in pref-
erence to the perhaps more exact but also more pedantic terms female wine seller”
(Langdon, OECT II 15) and “hostess of a tavern” (Gadd, The Early Dynasties of Sumer
and Akkad, p. 4).
i®®Thus 8 and — to judge from the spacing — almost certainly WB; SU 3 + 4 : m uio
suh^s. As muio is omitted in both main branches of the tradition (A branch: WB;
B branch: S), the form without it must be nearer the original. On the other hand, since
parallelism with the other “historical notes” seems to call for a relative pronoun here and
since, strictly speaking, the agreement of WB and 8 only shows us a text preceding the
separation of the two main branches of the tradition, it seems just possible that the earliest
form of the text had 1 d at this point. This I d might then be responsible for the incor-
rect d-kurun-na instead of m uio - k u r u n - n a in the line above (see n. 197).
20 ® Thus 8 also; Su3+ 4 : -gb-.
201 The meaning of the phrase is that Ku(g)-Baba “laid the foundations for the political
and economical strength and importance of the city” (Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 129).
202 - 202 omits; 8: iugai-^m.
203 This abnormally long reign represents— as noted by Langdon — an effort to carry
Ku(g)-Baba across the 99 years of the dynasty of Akshak which the author had inserted
between her and her son Puzur-Sin (see n. 194 above and p. 177; cf. also pp. 159 f.). The
original figure for Ku(g)-Baba’s reign, that assigned to her in the source used by the author
of the King List, is unknown. The emendation of the present figure to 14, suggested by
Peiser in OLZ XV (1912) 154 f. and by Poebel ibid, col. 290, was based (1) on the assump-
tion that an original 4? had been misread as , which must be considered highly unlikely,
and (2) on a particular explanation of the difference in 8 between the sum of the single
reigns and the dynasty total which at that time seemed plausible but which other versions
of the King List, found after Peiser and Poebel wrote, have shown to be erroneous. (The true
explanation of this difference is that original i.e., 400, for Ur-Zababa(k) > ^ ,
i.e., 6; see n. 218 below.) There is thus nothing in favor of this emendation, and it should
be definitively abandoned.
106
The Sumerian King
List, '
WB
43
n a m - 1 u g a 1 - b i - k u s -
ba
;-tiim
WB
S
Sui
G
U4 - k u § “
.§^206
un-zi
WB
s
Sui
G
45
lugal-am
mu
3 [ 02 »’ i-a.,]
s
Sui
G
u n - d a - 1 u
- 1 u mu
6"'’® (emend to
12) i-as
WB
s
Sui
G
ur-ur
mu
6 i - as
Col. vi
s
Sui
G
[p li z u r -
mu 20 i-ag]
s
Sui
G
[i - s u - i 1
mu
24 i-as]
s
Sui
[s u - 1 n d
[ u m u i - s ■
u - i mu 7 ^^^
i-as]
s
Sui
[6 luga
1]
Li
S
Sui
5
[m u - b i
99212
f b - as]
WB
Li
S
Sui
U4 - k u § li^^
«^HukuI
[ba-an~sig]
WB
Li
S
Sui
[b a m] - 1 11 g
a 1 " b i
WB
Li
S
Sui
k i s
ba-tiim
WB
U
s
Sus
J § Jki 214
piizur-^^stn
WB
Li
s
SU3
10
dumu
ku-
‘^b a - b ae - k 64^^®
WB
Li
s
Sus
u g a 1 “ a :
m^^® m u
25 i - a5
WB
Li
s
a -
b a4 - b a4^^'^
204 .
-204
The reading of the ideogram i
as Akshak was proved by a
variant in the Nahr
el-Kelb inscription of Nebuchadnezzar (E. Unger and F. H. Weissbach in ZA XXIX
[1914/15] 183). That this reading is original is shown by the ^‘ideogram” itself, which is
clearly an old phonetic writing U4 - k u s d representing a pronunciation ^ k s C (k) .
Note also the early passages lugal U4-ku§ti^^-ka (=lugal....k“a(k)), “the
king of . . . .k” (E-Anna(k)-tum, SAKj p. 20 6 iv 25), and lii u^-k usd*=*--k a-ke 4
Id kisi^^-'ke 4 (=iii....k-ak“e lu Ki 8 i-(a)k-e), “the man of k (and)
the man of Kish” (En-shakush-Anna(k), PBS IV 1, p. 151, 11. 13 f.), which show that
the name ends in
^0® - s ^ omitted by mistake; the copyist looked at U4 - k u § one line too far down.
S and G: - a ; Sui omits. The - s ^ in WB is dittography from U4 - k u s d^^ - s 6 ,
which appeared in the preceding line in the scribe^s original.
207 restore ^ (30) after S.
Dittography from m u 6 i - as in following line. S has 12, which is correct as shown
by the correspondence of the resulting dynasty total, 99 years, with the 100 years assigned
to Ku(g)-Baba. See p. 177.
On this reading see Landsberger, Die Fauna des alien MeBopotamien^ pp. 60 f.
Thus Sui; S adds - k e4 .
211 Thus S; Sui: 24, by dittography from the similar i «• s u - i 1 24 mu i - as (or - n a?)
in the preceding line.
Critical Edition or^theITexTj Gols. v: 43— vi 12 :, y\, '. :iCI7i
43 its'kingsMp Akshak®®^,, was;c,arried.^' '
To (emend to In) Akshak Unzi
45 became king and reigned 30 years ;
TJndalulu reigned 6 (emend to 12) years;
Ur-ur reigned 6 years;
Col. vi
Puzur-Nirah reigned 20 years;
IshMIreigned24years;
Shti-Stn, son of Ishli“il, reigned 7 years.
6 kings
5 reigned its 99 years,
Akshak was smitten with weapons ;
its kingship
to Kish was carried.
In Kish Puzur-Stn,
10 son of Ku(g)-Baba,
became king and reigned 25 years;
Ur.Zababa(k),2i7
212 Thus Li and S; Sui has (116), due to its erroneous figure, 24, for the
reign of Shu-Sln (see n. 211).
213 Thus also Li; Sui places the dynasty of Maeri here (see n. 187 above).
214 Li adds - a . In S and Su3+4, where Puzur-Stn is the second king of the dynasty
(see n. 194 above), there are, of course, no introductory formulas with his name.
213 Thus S and Li also; SU3+4 omits.
216 Thus Li,, also. In S and Sus+i, where Puzur-Stn is the second king of the dynasty
(see n. 194 above), there are, of course, no introductory formulas with his name.
217-217 On the reading of the divine name ^za-mal-mal as ‘^z a - b 34 - b a* see Ungnad
in OLZ XXV (1922) 202 f. and especially Weidner in Archiv fur Keilschriftforschung II
(1924/25) 13. Weidner gives good reasons for doubting the authenticity of the variant
reading ‘^Ilbaba (ibid, n. 7). The evidence lately produced in its favor by Ungnad (OLZ
XL [1937] 733, n. 1, a reference which we owe to Dr. Gelb) seems to us too uncertain to
alter the situation materially. On the reading of the name cf. also the musical instrument
^'^’^ur-za-ba-bi-tu (vars. [ur-z]a-hla{?)-h]i4u[m]f ur>-za-bi4umy and men-
tioned in the third tablet of diri ~mR^siiaku=^wairu, which was named after our
king (A. Falkenstein and L. Matous in ZA n.F. VIII 147).
According to the note in 1. 33, Sargon of Agade was originally cupbearer of Ur-Zababa(k).
An anecdote concerning Ur-Zababa(k) and Sargon is related in Chronicle Weidner (Giiter-
bock in ZA n,F. VIII 49 and 52). IJr-Zababa(k) is mentioned in the legend of Sargon and
108
The Sumerian King List
WB
Li
S
13
[d u m u|
2;ur •
- % 1 n
-k 64
WB
Lx
s
[m]u
400218
i - as
WB
s
Sui
SU 4
15
2 X 9 [S i .
- m] u -
d ar-r
^220 219 mu 30^1
l-as
WB
s
SU 4
222 r^l .
W l
a - 1 a r
<d
um u
. si-
mu-
da
r-r a-
k 64)^2
m u
7223
WB
s
Sui
§4
- 1 A
-mu-
t i
m 11
2p26
i - as
WB
s
Sui
m
a m
a§
m u
11 1
-as^*
WB
s
a
-an-ni-ia^^‘
* 5
5 a d i
jjl 230
mu
7231
i-as
Lugai-zage-si, AO 7673 (Scheil in RA XIII [1916] 175-79; H. de Genouillac, TRS II, No. 73
[PL CXLII a]; cf. Gtiterboek, op. cit p. 37). In later times he was considered a god and ap-
pears as GUD-ntJB of Ninurta in the series an: ^an-nu-um (CT XXIV, Pi. 8:5; Deimei,
Pantheon huhylonicumf 124:1).
S: ^ (6). Since the dynasty total given in S, 586 years, presupposes that S originally
had the same figure as WB, 400 years, for the reign of Ur-Zababa(k), the present 6 must
have developed from original (400) through a damaged text in which the tens were
broken away: Why such an extremely high figure was assigned to Ur-Zababa(k) is
uncertain. Perhaps the author had reasons similar to those which made him give Elu(g)-
Baba 100 years (see n. 203 above). Langdon^s explanation (OECT II 16, n. 10) that
originally stood for 6 40/60 is inacceptable, as such writings are never used in King
List. - ^
219-213 Simu-d4r appears in this place in S and apparently in SU3+4, where only [ ] - d a r
is left. In Sui Simu-d^r is listed as the last king of the dynasty, preceded by a fictitious Shu-
ilishu and by Ishm^-Shamash. The order of WB, S, and SU3+4, which is attested in both
main branches of the tradition (A branch: WB; B branch: S and SU3+4), is of course origi-
nal. As for Sui, there can be little doubt that it derives from a version in which part of the
dynasty was blotted out by a serious lacuna, a lacuna which the copyist tried to restore as
best he could from other broken fragments. See also the following notes.
220 g, Sui, and SU3+4 omit. The final - r a in WB is probably dittography from d u m u
si-mu-dar-ra after tJ§t-watar, which suggests that WB originally contained that
phrase; see n. 222.
221 Thus S also. The figure is not preserved in SU3+4. Sui, which lists Simu-ddr as the
last ruler of the dynasty, i.e., in the place which belongs to Nannia, also gives him Nan-
nia^s reign of 7 years. We must therefore assume that the lacuna in the original of Sui
(see n. 219) ended just after the name of Nannia: [na-an-ni-ia zadim] 7 mu
i - as, so that the copyist has only restored a wrong name here.
222-222 g. ti-§i-wa-t4r dumu si-mu-dar-ra-ke 4. SU3+4, which has [si-
m u] - d a r . m u 1] - as [fi - § i - w a] - 1 A r [. . m u i] - as , seems to follow WB. Since
the Su texts are derived from badly damaged originals and since there are traces in
WB suggesting that its original had the words dumu si“mu-dar“ra-ke 4 (n. 220),
it is likely that S here preserves the original form of the text.
6. WB^s figure is more probably original, since Iff (6) could very easily develop
out of an original W (7) through a slightly damaged text, as indicated in n. 231 below.
Critical Edition of the Text, Col, vi 13-“19
109
13 son of Puzur-Sin,
reigned 400 years;
15 Simu-ddr^^^ reigned 30 years;
‘D?i"Watar<, son of Simu-d4r,> reigned 7 years;
Eshtar-muti reigned 11 years;
Ishm^-Shamash reigned 11 years;
Nannia, a stoneeutter, reigned 7 years.
224 Su3+4 gives the dynasty total after this line. It must therefore derive through a text
which had a lacuna from here down to the end of the dynasty. As we have seen above (n.
219), Sui also shows evidence of being derived through a text with such a lacuna; so we
have here further proof that Sui and SU3+4 derive from a common ancestor (see pp. 25
and 50 f.).
225-225 3. obviously remnants of e §4 - 1 d r .
226 Thus S also; Sm: '4:^, probably remains of (17). It is impossible to say how
this figure originated. The passage is very badly corrupted (see n. 219 above). The con-
current testimony of WB and S, representing both main branches of the tradition, of
course identifies 11 as original.
227-227 Thus Sui also; S: i-mu-. Since i§-me- is represented in both branches of
the tradition (A branch: WB; B branch: Sui), it is presumably original.
228 After this line Sui lists a king iu-i-li-§u who reigned ^ (15) years. This
king can be no other than the well known Shu-ilishu of Isin; and, comparing the account
of the Isin dynasty given by Sui, we may perhaps assume that the copyist had a loose,
unplaced fragment which he first used when he restored the lacuna in this section (see
n. 219) but which later on he was able to place and to ^^join’' where it actually belonged,
after Sui viii 18:
That the source of Sui and SU3+4 was in an utterly damaged and broken condition is evi-
denced by many details (see pp. 25 and 50 f. and nn. 219, 221, 224, and 226 above).
229-229 3 omits -an- (cf, n. 231); Sui restores Simu-d4r here (see n. 221).
230 This reading, first pointed out by Thm-eau-Dangin, La chronologie des dynaMies de
Sumer et d'Accad, p. 62, is certain. That the sign is not a h but z a d i m is obvious from
a comparison of in na-an-ni-ia zadim (WB vi 19) with ^ (ah/ih) in
ba-ii-ih (WB ii 20).
231 Thus Sui also (cf. n. 221); S has UT (3). It is probable that the latter figure is sec-
ondary and derives from an original W (7) through a damaged text: (cf. n. 272). Note
also that some other variants in S (see nn. 223 and 229) seem due to omissions around the
jd u - i - [ i -Tn%
mn i - as
no
The Sumeeian King List
WB
S
Sux
8114
20
T
132 lug
a 1
WB
S
Sui
SU4
m
u-bi
491233
1
b - as
WB
s
Sui
Su4
k
i §
«'Hukui
b
a -
■ a
n
-si g
WB
s
Sux
Su4
n
am-lugal-b
li unu
gki
-§
e
b;
a-
•t lim
WB
s
Sui
SU 4
u
n u’'* -
g 0^234
lu
ga
1 -
z
h-
g
e -si
WB
s
Sux
Su4
25
li
ugal-
m u
25
1 - as
WB
s
Sui
Su4
1
lugal
WB
s
Sux
Slu
m u <- b
i)235
, 25
i - as
WB
s
Sux
SU4
u
n u
giSt
u k u 1
b
a ■
■ a
n
-sig
WB
s
Sui
Su4
H
am -1
Ugal-
bi
WB
s
SUx
SU4
30
a
- g a - d -
se
b a
, -
t li m
WB
s
Sui
a
- g a - d
§ a
r -
r u -
k
i - i n
WB
s
.
,238 - b a - n i
n
U '
-g
i
r 112^39
WB
Li
s
q
a - s u •
- dU 8
u r -
.
b;
^4
- b a4
WB
Li
s
1
ugal
a - <ga
->242 de^
- 1
li
a-
“g
a
-de^^
WB
Li
s
35
m u - u - d u
-a
WB
Li
s
1
ugal-
km
mu
56'
245
i-as
WB
Lx
r
i-mu
- u § d
u m u
s a
r -
r u -
k
i - i n
WB
Lx
m u
9246
i-as
middles of the lines. All these variants will be explained if we assume a single lacuna, a
slightly widened crack, in some predecessor of S:
ti-§i-wa-tdr
d um u Ui-m u-d ar
mu yiw in -as
e S 4 - 1 A r 4 m u - 1 i
mu i n - as
i§- ^§ama§
mu in- as
na- &m-ni-a zadim
mu in^as
232 Thus Sui also; S, which counts Ku(g)-Baba as a member of this dynasty, has 8.
233 S: 586. This text counts Ku(g)-Baba (100 years) as a member of the dynasty, and
the total is correct if the present figure (6) for Ur-Zababa(k) is restored to its original
form (400); see n. 218. The total of Sui, 485 years, stands apart and is probably
the sum of the single reigns after the scribe had restored the lacuna found in his original
(cf. nn. 219 and 221). It is thus altogether secondary.
234 Thus S and Sui also; SU3+4: - *'a4L
233 Erroneously omitted in WB, probably by dittography of the similar m u 25 in the
preceding line. S and Sui correctly: -bi .
236 Thus according to the photograph. The sae which Langdon’s copy shows here is erro-
neous, a modem dittography from the following line: a-ga-dd sar-ru-ki-in.
Ill
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. yi 20-38
20 7 kings
reigned its 491 years.
Kish was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to Uruk was carried.
In Uruk Lugal-zage-si
25 became king and reigned 25 years.
1 king
reigned its 25 years.
Uruk was smitten with weapons ;
its kingship
30 to Agade was carried.
In Agade Sharru(m)“kin—
his .... was a date-grower—
cupbearer of Ur-Zababa(k), 2 ^^
king of Agade, the one who
35 built^^^ Agade,
became king and reigned 56 years;
Rimush, son of Sharru(m)-ktn,
reigned 9 years;
237 S adds a , which is correct.
23S According to the photograph WB has S has (according to the photograph in
RA IX [1912] opp. p. 68 ) It may be definitely stated that none of the readings thus
far proposed is compatible with the sign as given by the photographs. These proposals are :
Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 130, n. 10: ab-ba-ni, “his father’’; Thureau-Dangin, La
chronologie des dynasties de Sumer ei d^Accad, p, 62: sar-ru-ki-in-lu-ba-ni,
“qu’un roi legitime soit cree” (proposed before WB had become known); Langdon, OECT
II 17: s a r - r u -k i - i n -i - 1 u -b a-n i ; Zimmern in ZDMG n.F. Ill 33, n. 10: i-
dib-ba-ni, “dessen Pflegevater(?), dessen Aufnehmer(?)”; Giiterbock in ZA. n.F.
VIII 4; (i) - d i b - b a - n i , “dessen ^Aufnehmer.’ ”
239 On this reading of gis-sar in our word see Poebel in AJSL LI (1934/35) 172.
Thus Li and S. The vertical wedge appearing betw’een z a and b a 4 in Langdon’s cop^’- of
WB is — as shown by the photograph— part of an erased b a 4 over which z a is now written.
241 Listed as a ruler of Kish in 1. 12 above. On the reading of the name see n, 217.
242 Omitted in WB by mistake; preserved in Li and S.
243 Li adds “ d a - ; S is broken but seems to agree with Li.
244 Var. in Li and S(?): “the one under whom Agade was built” (ef. n. 119 above).
245 Lx: 55. Pg, P 3 , S, Sui, and SU 3+4 seem to have follow'ed Lx (see pp. 23-26). The figure
of WB, 56, is more probably original than 55, since the latter can so easily have developed
from the former through a damaged text, and since WB as a whole preserves the bet-
ter text in this section (see pp. 26 f.).
246 Li: 15. P 2 , P 3 , S, Sui, and SU 3+4 seem to have followed Lx (see pp. 23-26). The figure
of WB, 9, is original. The figure 15 seems to be due to dittography from the almost identical
dumu §ar-ru-ki-in mu 15 i-asinU. 41-42 (see p. 27),
112
The Sumebian King List
WB Li
39
m a - n i - i § - ^ 471 ^ j . i §^^7 . g ^
WB Li
40
se§-gal
r 1 - m u - - u s
WB Li
d u m u
§ar-ru-ki-in
WB Li
mu
15^“ [i-aj
WB Li
Sua
n a - r a - a m -
'[sin]
WB Li
Sua
dumu
m a - [ni- i s - 1 i - i s - sm]
WB Pa U
Sua
45
mu
[57(?)26i j.aj
WB Pa Li
s
SUa
s [ar- ^^%a-U-
gar-rlpa
Pa Li
Sua
[d u m u
na-ra-am-<^sln]
Pa Li
Sua
[m u
25254 i -
Col. vii
WB Pa Li
s
Sua
2®®[a - b a - ^ m
1 u] g a F’ a - b a - a m
nu lugaF®®
WB Pa Li
s
Sua
[268J259 J j.) .
g i^260j _ g i^261 iugal
247-247 Jjj;
-te-
. This king’s name in his own inscriptions is always written ma-an-
is4u-suj which represents man “Who is with him?” (on -m written -sw in this
period cf. e.g. Ungnad in MV AG XX 2 [1915] p. 14). At the time of the 3d dynasty of Ur
the form iUe of the preposition iUu/iUe became predominant, so our name changes to Man-
ishteshu (m-an iUe-su); see W. von Soden in ZA n.F. VII (1933) 138 and n. 1.
248 ig damaged at this point. Langdon read the traces as - § d - ; but the photo-
graph shows i.e., - ^u s'* - , so it is apparently a case of simple dittography. It may
even be that the scribe erased this first -us- because he was not satisfied with the spac-
ing and wrote a second one which filled out the line. Li has correctly rf-mu-u§.
249 The meaning of the name, “Who is with him?” (see n. 247), might suggest that
Rlmush and Man-ishtushu were born as twins.
7. p2, Ps, Sui, and SU3+4 seem to have followed Li (see pp. 23-26), The figure
of WB, which caused the wrong figure for Hlmush in Li (see n, 246), must be the original.
251 Li has 56, agreeing with Ps’s which also can be restored as (56). In WB
the figure for Narto-Sin and likewise the figures for Shar-kali-sharri and for the inter-
regnum are missing; and if we restore them from the texts of the B group as 56, 25 (this
seems better than 24; see n. 254 below), and 3 we get a much higher sum of single reigns than
that indicated in WB's total, 181 years. One of these figures must therefore be too high.
Using only the lower two figures, 25 for Shar-kali-sharri and 3 for the interregnum, we have
37 years left for Nar^m-Stn. This figure is indeed very probable; for, looking more closely
at the figure 56 given for this ruler in the B group, we see that it appears just above the sign
SAK of sar-k^-H-§ar-ri, which begins with two vertical rows of -< -wedges:
A copyist could therefore easily misread the uppermost of these wedges as part of the nu-
meral above: Thus the B figure 56 may derive from an original 36, which is very
near to the 37 years left for Narto-Sin by the total of WB. We have already noted many
examples of loss of a final unit by transmission through a sHghtiy damaged text.
252-262 Thus in P3, Li, and probably S (§ar-k[^-ll-sar-ri]). Sua has ^ in-
stead of -k^-U-, probably because it descended through an ancestor in which only
one wedge of these signs remained, and -ri instead of - r i .
Ceitical Edition of the Text, Cols, vi 39— vii 2 113
39 Man-isMushu,
40 the older brother^^^ of Rtmush,
son of Sharru(m)-ktn,
reigned 15 years;
Nar4m-Sin,
son of Mandshtushu,
45 reigned 37(?) years;
Shar-kali-sharri,
son of Nar4m-Sin,2^^
reigned 25 years.
Col. vii
Who was king? Who was not king?
Was Igigi (var. Irgigi) king?
253 In Shar-kali-sharri’s inscription given in SAK, p. 164 d, the line tur-da-ti ^en4il
(i 2), which is generally read 7?idr da-ti-^en4ilj ^^son of Dati-Enlil” (doubted by Poebel,
PBS IV 1, p. 132, n. 4; rejected by Weissbach in RLA II 196), is — as first seen by Hrozn^-
in WZKM XXVI (1912) 151, n. 2 — in all probability an ideographic writing ^en4ilf
“offspring of Enlil” (SL, No. 144.48^: TUR-DA^ZzWwm), a title which is closely paralleled
by the title li4um Ha-gan^ “offspring of Dagan,” taken by Hammurabi (Code of Hammu-
rabi iv 27). This passage, therefore, should not be quoted^ — as is sometimes done — to prove
the unreliability of the King List.
25 i Thus Lr and Susj P3 has 24. Since it is more likely that an original 25 lost a final unit
in transmission than that there was an accretion of one unit, we may assume that the figure
25 attested by Li and Sus is correct.
255 Pg inserts here a subtotal for the family of Sargon: WM'M mu[ s]ar-ru-kf-
n i m , which may be restored: mu [dumu-dumus]ar-ru“ki-nim, “157
years the family of Sargon” (cf. Poebel, PBS IV 1, pp. 80 and 132 f.). The copyist of
Ps seems to have had a predilection for such subtotals (see n. 104 above).
256-266 Thus also S. Sug gives a-ba lugal a-ba iugal-4m, which is clearly
a corrupt form of the text found in WB and S. Li and P3 have the line in Akkadian: ma-nu-
um mr ma-nvrum la sdr. See the discussion of this variant on pp. 52 f.
257 Thus according to the photograph.
258 S, which writes the names of these four kings on two lines, adds a vertical wedge in
front of each name, perhaps to indicate that they were arranged on four lines in its original,
as is the case in the other versions.
25» Thus S. P3 gives i - ,* Li and Sus give i r - . It is obvious that i r - is a misreading
of the very similar sign i - , or vice versa, and that i - is just a variant writing of
1 - . Whether 1 - or - i r - is original must remain uncertain; cf, the discussion of the sec-
tion as a whole on pp. 52 f .
250 Thus P3, S, and Sus; Li: -gh- ,
251 Thus P3, S, and Sus also; Li: - g [U] .
114 The Shmebian King List
WB
P 3 L
1 s
SU3
3
P®n a-nu^^-u
jn263]
lugal
WB
P 3 L
1 s
Sua
J258i , m i]
lugal
WB
Pa
S
Sua
5
pB8e266 _ 1 u . 1 u]
1 ug al
WB
Pa
s
Sui
Sua
267[4_bi]
1 u g al
WB
Pa
s
Sui
[m u
3]
ib-aa^”
WB
Pa
s
<Sui>
[d u - d u m] u
21
1 - as
WB
s
<Sui>
[§u-dur--iil]
d u m u
d u
- d u - k 64
WB
s
<Sui>
10
[mu]
15
i-as
WB(P2)
s
Sui
SU4
1 PS 8 lugal
WB
(Pa)
s
Sui
SU 4
mu-bi
181269
1 b - as
WB
s
Sui
SU4
a - g a - d u k u 1
b a
-an-slg
WB
s
Sui
SU4
nam-lugal-biunug^'-se
ba-tdm
WB
s
Sui
SU4
15
n u’"* <- g a>^™ u r - n i
igin
lugal-
WB
s
Sui
SU4
mu
7272
i-as
WB
s
Sui
SU4
u r - i g i r
dum u
ur-
n i g 1 n®’®
WB
s
Sui
SU4
mu
0274
i-as
WB
s
<Sui> <Su4>
2 ^% u d - d a
m u
6
i-as
WB
s
<SUi> <SU 4 >
20
ptizur-i-li
m u
5
i - as='®
262 Thus Li, S, and Su^; P 3 - n i ,
263 Thus S and Sug. Li is broken here; P 3 omits.
264 Nanum occurs in this place in Li and Sus; Pg and S have the order Irgigi, Imi, Nanum,
Elulu. Which is original? See also the discussion of this section on pp. 52 f.
265 In this place in Li and Suaj in Pg and S, before Nanum (see n. 264).
266 Thus Pg; S and Sug*. i-.
266a To this king belongs probably the inscribed dagger published by Selim J. Levy in
AOF X (1935-36) 281 : lA-lu-ul dan Idr a-ga’-de^K Gelb, who comments on this name in
AJSL LIII (1935/37) 38, adduces evidence for a value i^. for li and proposes a reading
ijclu-ul-dan. In view of the variant writings of the name of the e n s i (k) of Lagash en-
lA-iar-zi and en-e-tar-zi (cf. Poebel in ZA n.F. IV [1929] 82) a reading ejc^u-id-dan should
perhaps also be taken into consideration. In either case Elulu of the King List may be
considered an abbreviated form of the name.
267-267 This seems the best restoration of WB; it fits also Sui and SU 3 + 4 . Pg and S have
4 - b i 3 mu 1 b - as (S: i n - as) . Cf. pp. 52 f.
26« S: 12; Sui has and Su 8+4 has both of which probably represent m (9). The figure
of WB must be considered originai; see p. 25, where the problems which these figures raise
are discussed in detail.
■ 115 '
Geitical, Edition op the Text, CoD, :vii 3^^
3 Was king?
Was Imi265 king?
5 Was king?
Their tetrad was king
and reigned 3 years!
Dudu reigned 21 years;
Shu-Durul, son of Dudu,
10 reigned 15 years.
11 kings
reigned its 181 years.
Agade was smitten with weapons;
its kingship to Uruk was carried.
15 In Uruk Ur-nigin(ak) became king
and reigned 7 years;
Ur“gigir(ak), son of Ur-nigin(ak),
reigned 6 years;
Kudda reigned 6 years;
20 Puzur-ili reigned 5 years;
269 S: 197. With S agreed P 2 (in final summary im<w = 197) and in all probability Li also.
Sui: 161; SU 3 + 4 : 177. We must consider the 181 years of WB original; see pp. 23-28, where
the problems raised by these figm^es have been discussed in detail.
270-270 Thus according to the photograph; the - § ^ given in Langdon^s copy is not in
the text. S: unu^^-ga; SU 3 + 4 : unug^‘-a 4 ; Sui omits. The correct form is obvi-
ously unu^*-ga.
271 Thus S and SU 3+4 also. Sui erroneously: - an , the copyist having skipped the a of
■A-AN = '^,m . '
272 S: 3; Sui: 30; SU 3 + 4 : 15. Sui and Sus +4 derive in this section from a common, very
much damaged, original (see pp. 25 and 50 f., also nn. 219, 221, 224, 226, and 228 above)
which the scribes have tried to restore. Their evidence is accordingly of little value. As for
the figures given by WB and S, 7 and 3, it seems probable that 7 is original; for while w,
through a broken text, W, can easily develop into iw, 3 (cf. n. 231 above), the opposite
development would be difficult to account for.
273 Thus according to the photograph. With WB agree Sui and SU 3 + 4 ; S adds - k 64 .
274 Thus S also; Sm: 15; SU 3 + 4 : 7. Since 6 is attested in both main branches of the
tradition (A branch: WB; B branch: S), it must be original. Sui and Sus +4 derive through
a badly broken text (see n. 272 and passages quoted there). How the scribes arrived at the
figures 15 and 7 cannot be determined with certainty.
275-276 These lines occur only in WB and S; Sui and Su 8+4 omit them, which can only
mean that their common original had a lacuna here (see p. 51).
116
TH3a Stjmebian King List
WB
s
Sui
Su4
21
r - *^11 1
m u
l-ao
WB
s
SU4
5279
l ug a
1
WB
P 4
s
SU4
mu-bi
30280
i b - as
WB
P 4
s
Su4
u n u
u Is
:ul
b a
-an - si g
WB
P 4
s
SU4
25
n a m - 1 u g
al-bi
WB
P 4
s
Su4
i - s u - ]
[ u - u b4
<-ga
gu-tu^®^-
u
- s5> b
a-tii
. m
WB<P4>Li
SU4
i - s u - !
1 u - u b4
<-ga
r>
gu-tu>
u
WB<P4)Li
G
SU4
u g a 1
mu
n u - 1 u
278-276 Xhus S and Su3+4 also; Sui has an otherwise unknown ruler, 1 u g a 1 - m e - 14 m .
It seems probable that the common ancestor of Sui and SU3+4 served as original for SU3+4
when the lacuna mentioned in n. 275 reached to just above Ur-Utu(k) and for Sui somewhat
later, when the name of this ruler also had disappeared. The curious lugal-me-
14m restored here by the scribe may represent an original 1 u g a 1 - ‘‘e^ - n e ( = 14 m) ;
see p. 5L
2^7 Sui and Su8+4 add d u m u u r - i g i r ; S agrees mth WB. Since the text of
WB is represented in both main branches of the tradition (A branch: WB; B branch: S),
we must consider it original. The addition in the related sources Sui and SU3+4 is clearly
free invention in continuation of u r •- igir dumu ur-nigln, made after
the intervening rulers Kudda and Pusiur-ili had disappeared,
278 Thus S also; Sui: 7; SU3+4: 25. Since 6 is attested in both main branches of the tra-
dition (A branch: WB; B branch: S), it must be original. How the variants in Sui and
Sua+4 originated cannot be determined with certainty.
279 Thus S also. Su34-4 has 3, which is correct for it, inasmuch as the rulers Kudda and
Puzur-ili have been lost in this version (see n. 275 above and p. 51). The figure 5 attested
by both WB and S must be original.
289 S: 26; P4 also, which preserves should obviously be restored as (26). The
figure 26 equals the sum of individual reigns preserved in S, where Ur-nigin(ak) is listed
with 3 years instead of 7 as in WB, Since 7, as we have seen above (h. 272), is probably
more correct than 3, the total of WB should be preferred. SU3+4 gives 47 years as total,
which agrees with its single reigns: 15+7+25=47. As the total is dependent on secondary
and badly corrupted individual reigns, it can be ignored.
281-281 k i - s u - 1 u - d b - [ ] ; S: k i - s u -- 1 u - d b » g a r ; SU3+4: [m] a - d a . We
consider the omission of -g ar in WB accidental, since this ms. uses the correct form of
the word in col. viii 1.
282 P4 and S: -ti-; Sus+ 4 : -td-.
288 S and SU3+4 add § 5 ; P4 is broken here,
284-284 Lj. ki-su-lu“db-gar g[u-... .]; P4 omits; Su3.f4: [m a - d] a gu-td
Ckitical Edition of the-Text, Col. vli " JH7
21 Ur-Utu(k) reigned 6 years.
5 kings
reigned its 30 years.
Uruk was smitten with weapons;
25 its kingship
(to) the horde of Gutium was carried.
In the horde of Gutium
A king without name!
286-286 Thus probably G also; restore [....] u - 1 u k’ . Li : i ii g a 1 n u - u b -
t u k ; Su34.4: [ ] > - a n - d 6 ; P4 omits. The text of WB, iugal mu nu-tuk,
king without name,” is clearly a copyist's note that a name has been obliterated by a
lacuna in this place. The same statement, only differently worded, is presented by SU3+4:
[d-] >-an-d 6, which apparently reflects a broken original bal-an-d 6-[a],
^‘somebody who has disappeared” (ef. n. 178 above, referring to another example of use of
this phrase by Sus+4 to indicate an old break).
Completely different in meaning is, however, the text presented by Li : 1 u g a 1 n u -
ub-tuk, ^^(the Gutian horde) did not have a king,” which states that the Gutians
constituted a disorganized horde with no central authority. That this variant is secondary
is shown by the fact that it is peculiar to a single text in the B branch of the tradition, where-
as the other concept, that a name has been broken away, is found in both the B branch
(SU3+4) and the A branch (WB) and so must be older. It is also proved, however, by the
text of the section itself. WB names 20 kings of the Gutian dynasty. The summary at the
end, however, counts 21 kings both in WB and in Li. This gives excellent sense if our line,
as in WB and SU3+4, is a note that there originally was a name here, making 21 names in
all, but is inexplicable if, as in Li, it is merely a piece of information concerning the organiza-
tion of the Gutians. The text of Li, 1 u g a 1 n u - u b - 1 u k , is in all probability a de-
velopment from that of WB. A slightly damaged version, lugal [mu] nu-tuk,
could become lugal nu tuk, ^bad not a king,” which it would be natural to refer
to ^^the Gutian horde” and to change into the grammatically more correct form lugal
nu-ub-tuk (collective).
A suggestion may be offered as to what name may originally have stood in this place
in the King List or in its source. Among the Nippur material in the University Museum
of the University of Pennsylvania, Hilprecht found many years ago a copy of a long in-
scription of a ruler e-er-ri-du-pi-zi-ir (v&r. m-H-dor-pi-zi-ir) ^ who styled himself da-niim
sdr gu-ti-im ii ki-ithra-iim ar^ha-im, ‘*the mighty one, king of Gutium and of the four quar-
ters” (Hilprecht, The Earliest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and The Te7nple Ld-
hrary of Nippur [Pennsylvania. University. Babylonian Expedition. Series D : Researches
and Treatises V 1 (Philadelphia, 1910)] chap, iv; cf, Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 134). This title
is — except for the addition of ^^king of Gutium” — the title of Nar^m-Sin of Agade and thus
presents the Gutian as heir to Narto-Stn's kingdom. Since, as we shall see later (pp. 205-7),
the available evidence indicates that the Gutian dynasty is to be reckoned from a conquest
which overthrew the reign of just that ruler, Narto-Stn, the Gutian Erridupizir, who flaunts
Nar4m-Stn's titles in his inscription, is indeed very likely to be the anonymous Gutian ruler
who defeated him and thereby laid the foundation for Gutian supremacy.
118
The Sumerian King List
WB P 4 Li
G
Su 4 29
m - 1 a - u g a 1 - S.
m u
3288 }_aB
WBP 4 L 1
G
Su 4 30
888 i n - k i - § u §888 m u (var. 7)
i - as
WB Li
G
^%&,r-lagab-ia-gab^®^ m 6 i - as
WB Li
G
(var. ia-ar-Ia-
■ ga-
a §) mu 6^®^ i - as
WB
G
e-lu-lu-me-eg m 6 ^®® (var. 7)
i-a 6
WB
G
i -n i - m a - b a - k i - e § mu 5
i - as
WB
G
35
i - g 04- e §897_ a- u § mu
i - as
WB Li
888 i a-ar-la-ga b®®® m u 15
i - as
WB Li
8 “®i - b a - 1 e“® mu 3
i-as
WB Xi
8“4 a - a r - 1 a n - g a b> mu 3
i-as
WB Li
8 ®ku-r u-um ®“8 mu 1
i-as
WB
40
fha™®-bil-ki(?) 8 «^-iii mu 3
i-as
WB
8 “ 8 [ki-e]- r a - b u - u m®”® mu 2
i-as
WB
i-ra-ru-um mu 2
i-as
WB
ib-ra-nu-um mu 1
i-as
286-286 Thus P4 also (see photograph, PBS V, PL XOI) ; i m - = i m - 1 *'a'* - ^a’ .
Li’s im-bi-a developed from im-ta-a through a broken text:
Su3+4 omits.
287-287 ^^3+4: [1 u g a IJ - ^ HI ; P4 broken; Li omits.
Thus P4 also; Li: 5.
289-2S9p^. in-ki-[ ] ; Li: in-gi 4 -^ti§ ; SU3+4: [ ]T-ba. The concurrent tes-
timony of WB, P4, and Li, which represents both main branches of the tradition, must be
preferred to that of Sus+4. On the name cf. n. 301 below.
290 Li: 7. P4 does not seem to have given the reign of Inkishush; it has . . - d a - [ ]
in the line after the name. The traces in front of - d a show the heads of two vertical
wedges through which runs a horizontal line.
291-291 'pjje -l^hat KiL has the value 1 a g a b suggests that the following 1 a - g a b was
originally a gloss which got down into the line; cf. the similar cases of Samug (n. 85 above)
and Enbi-Eshtar (n. 159 above). The original form of the line in WB’s ancestors was there-
fore probably s^r-laga (cf. p. 207). That the name is Sarlagab is also indicated
by Li, which according to the photograph {PBS XIII, photographic PL II) has ^ »
ar-la-ga-ba, i.e., zar-ar-la-ga-ba (not wa-ar-la-ga-ba as in Le-
grain’s copy).
292 Thus according to the photograph.
293-293 ia-ar-la-ga-a§,
29^ Li: w j which can be restored as ilJfi (6).
295 Thus according to the photograph.
296 G: 7. Which is correct?
Critical Edition of the Text, Col. vii 29-43
119
29 Imta^ became king and reigned 3 years;
30 Inkishush reigned 6 (var. 7) years;
Sarlagab reigned 6 years;
Shulme^ (var, larlagash) reigned 6 years;
EMumesh reigned 6 (var* 7) years;
Inimabakesh reigned 5 years;
35 Igeshaush reigned 6 years;
larlagabreignedlSyears;
Ibate reigned 3 years;
Iarla<ngab> reigned 3 years;
Kurum reigned 1 year;
40 Habil-kin(?)reigned3years;
Laerabum(?) reigned 2 years;
Irarum reigned 2 years;
Ibranum reigned 1 year;
2°^ Thus according to the photograph.
298 G: which can be restored as m (6).
299- 299 Li: [ ]-g4b.
300- 300 Li: [i-b]a-ti.
301- 301 [i a - a] r - 1 a’ - a n ~ g a b (see PBS XIII, photographic PL II), which is
probably original. WB’s i a - a r - 1 a may represent a broken predecessor: ia-ar-iai-
a n - g a b] . Dr. T. George Allen calls my attention to the similarity between this name
ia-ar~la-an-gab and ia-ar-la-gab in L 36 above, suggesting that these are
in reality only variant writings of one name iariagab spoken with nasalized §, For
the existence of a nasalized g in Gutian speaks also the — not quite as close — correspond-
ence between in-ki-Sus, read perhaps i n - g es - s u s (1. 30), and i-gCi-eS-a-us
(1. 35), which may represent one name, i g e § 6 § .
302- 302 Li: [ ]-bi.
898 Thus according to the photograph, which shows the heads of the upper two vertical
wedges of this sign.
89^ Read thus instead of - d i ?
305-305 Xo be identified with the Gutian ruler whose inscription was published by Winckler
in ZA IV (1889) 406. The first line, containing the name, is damaged: It
was restored by Hilprecht in BE I 1 (1893) p. 13 as La~si{*})-ra{iyab{2)y and this restora-
tion has been generally accepted. Dr. Gelb of the Oriental Institute, however, calls our
attention to the facts that the traces which Hilprecht reads as si{7) look more like and
that — while a name Lasirab is otherwise unknown — a name La-4-ra-ab is attested by tablets
of the Agade period from Tell Asmar (As. 31 :T. 30 ix 10 and 29 and As. 31:T,la fragment
4 rev.). We have therefore adopted the reading Laerab as more probable than Lasirab.
120
The Sumeeiah King List
WB
44
]bia-ab-lum mu
2 i * Eg
WB
45
p li z u r - ^s i n d u m u J) a
- a b"l urn
WB
mu 7
■ i-as
WB
[id(?)]- ar-la-ga«an-d m u
7 i-ae
WB
[s i] - mu
7 i-as
WB
Li
[<i-n-g]a U 4 40
F^-as
WB(P2)Li
Sus
50
r2ii308 lugal
WB(P2)Li
Sus
[m u - b i 91]®®® U 4 40
b - as®!®
Col. viii
WB
Li
Sua
J
®“k i - s u - 1 u - u b 4 - g a
g [u - t U®!® -
um’^'l
Li
Sus
J
la
<*“tukul b a- a n - s i g>®^®
WB
Li
SU3
J
nam-lugal-bi unug’^V
- s e [b a -
ttim]
WB
J
u n - g a t u - 6 - g [A 1 lugal -
h
WB
J
®’-®m u 7 lu-ii 7 U 4
[. . i-as]
(emend to m u 7 i t u 6 U 4
15 i - as)®!®
WB
J
5
1 [lugal]
This king larlaganda is probably to be identified with ia-ar-la-ga-an,
king of Gutinm, mentioned in FOaS I, No. 13:1-2. The form there given would seem to
represent a shortened form Tariagand.
306 ^ = , The reconstruction of the name as [s i] - is suggested by the fact that
a Gutian king by the name Si^um (written si-ti-um) is known (Scheil in CRy 1911, pp.
318-37; cf. Poebel, PBS IV 1, pp. 134f.). The short form of the name met with in WB
may be due to a break in an ancestor of this ms. which swallowed up the last sign: s i -
U 4 [- u m] . This break might also be responsible for the short form of the immediately fol-
lowing name, Tiriga instead of Tirigan.
Thus according to the photograph.
'^Ty i.e., W<r. Li and the final summary of Pa also have 21. This figure is correct,
since the list originally had a name before Imta^; see n, 285 above. A certain mu-a~ti-gu-bi~
si^Uy mentioned as ^‘his king” by a scribe from the city sair-rigs ( sag - pa - kab - du ) near
Umma (Thureau-Dangin in RA IX [1912] 74-76) is usually considered one of the Gutian
kings. The name — formed with Muati, a name of Nabfi of Borsippa — ^seems, however,
to be compatible with an Akkadian etymology Mwait-gw (6) . , . . , '^Muati (has heard)
their wail”; and, since no other indications point to his being a Gutian, it is equally possible
that he was merely a local petty king on a par with the kings of Uruk (Uruk IV) etc. in
that period.
Thus by addition of the single reigns in WB. The higher totals, 124 years and 40
days in Li and 125 years and 40 days in Pj (final summary), are probably due to misreading
of the final ^ (-es) in the name e-lu-lu-me-e§ or the name i-ni-ma-ba-ki-eS
Ceitical Edition of the Text, Cols, vii 44— viu 5
121
44 Hablum reigned 2 years;
45 Puzur-Sin, son of Hablum,
reigned 7 years;
Iarlaganda(?) reigned 7 years;
SPu(m)(?) reigned 7 years;
Tiriga(n) reigned 40 days.
50 21 kings
reigned its 91 years and 40 days.
Col. viii
The horde of Gutium
(was smitten with weapons;)
its kingship to Uruk was carried.
In Uruk Utu-hegal became king
and reigned years 7x60+7, days . .
(emend to 7 years, 6 months, 15 days).
5 1 king
as part of the numeral for the reign. Such an error is very easy to make in Li and Ps,
where the figures follow directly upon the names (i-ni-ma-ba-ki-^Wmu l-as),
but not in WB, where the names are separated from the figures by the word mu (i-ni-
ma-ba-ki--^ mu V i-as). Assuming such an error (35 instead of 5 for Iniraa-
bakesh) to have happened in Li and restoring the missing parts of this text from
WB, we do indeed get the total which it now has, 124 years and 40 days
d“6d“15Hh'Sd“34“l d"3d~2~j-’2-f-l"b2”f*7’4"7"i“7] years “f'40 days = 124 years and 40
da^j's). P 2 , which belongs to the same main group of the tradition as Li, may be re-
stored in the same way except that it may have followed G in assigning 7 years rather
than 6 to Elulumesh. This would account for its total being one year higher than that of
Li. The total of Sus+i, 25 years, is likely to be the actual total of the individual reigns pre-
served in a damaged original.
311-311 Li; ki-su-lu-fib-gar; Sus+ 4 : m a - d a .
312 J and Li: -t i - .
3^3 Erroneously omitted in WB; preserved in Li, SU 3 + 4 , and J.
31^ According to the photograph (not Langdon’s copy) the space fits this restoration.
J : [1 u g a 1] - ^ m .
315-315 j; mu 7 itu 6 U4 [15 i-as], '^reigned 7 years, 6 months, and 15 days.”
The text of WB, mu7su-§i7u4[ ], *'years 7X60-f 7, days . . is clearly a cor-
rupt form of the text given by J. Note that the original figure for the months, 6, is pre-
served in the summary.
122
The Sumerian King List
WB
j
6
u - b i
7 §u-§i 6
%4’
i - as]
(emend to mu-bi 7 itu
. 6 U 4
15 :
WB
SU4
j
unug^^
8»°tukul
b a
i.-a
n-sig
WB
SU4
nam-lug
al-bi ur[i^''
-§5]
b a
- 1 tlm
WB
Ps
Su4
u r - m a
u r - [%a mm
upn
lu
'gapis
WB
Ps
Su4
10
mu
18
W-as
WB
Ps
SU4
^ u 1 - g i
d u m u ^ r
- % a 1
mm
m-k 04
WB
Ps
SU4
mu
46®^^ (emend to
48)
l-ag
WB
Ps
Su4
d 3n\y u r? - *^8
t d u m u ^
324| u 1 .
‘gi
- k 64325
WB
Ps
SU4
mu
9326
i - as
WB
Ps
Su4
15
§ u - i n
d u m u
d 327)3 y
17-
^S i n328
WB
Ps
Sui
SU4
mu
0329
i - Es
WB
Ps
Sui
SU4
j
3301 -bi-^si
n d u mu
§U-
n - k 64
WB
Ps
Sui
Su4
J
mu
24331
i-as
WB
Ps
Sui
Su4
J
4332
(emend to 5) 1 ii
gal
316-316 'PhuS
1 according to
the photograph. J :
[mu-bi 7] i t u 6 ui
15
i- V.
The text of WB,
mu-bi 7
§ u - § i
fi *^ 114 ^ [ ] y ^^its years 7 X 60
days. .
is clear-
ly a corrupt form of the
text given by
J.
317 P 5 adds
-k 64 .
318 p
5 and 1
Sus+i
add -
a m ,
On the
omission of - i
m in WB see p.
136.
SU 3+4 also has the determinative; Pg omits it.
320 pj and S 133+4 omit.
32^Su 3+4: 48; Ps*. 58. The origin of the variants is fairly clear. As will be noted, the
figures of S 113+4 and Pe both show the same number of units, namely eight, while WB has
six. Since Tff (6) can easily have developed out of an original m (8) by passing through a
slightly broken text: Wfl, it is probable that WB^s source had 8 units in its numeral
but lost two in the course of transmission. This assumption is strongly supported by the
high dynasty total, 108 years, which WB gives. Since the present figures for individual
reigns add up to only 106 years, two years less than the total demands, it seems obvious
that the total reflects an older, more correct form of the text in which the tvm units in the
reign of Shulgi had not yet been lost. We can therefore assume that WB’s original had 48
years for Shulgi, which would make it agree with SU 3 + 4 .
Comparing WB and SU 3+4 with Ps, we note that P& places the sign for *Vear,’’ m u ,
directly in front of the figures. Since this sign ends in •< -wedges and since the difference
between Ps's (58) and the ^ (48) found in or behind SU 3+4 and WB consists in the ad-
dition of just such a wedge, it seems obvious that the variant in Ps is due to the confu-
sion of -< -wedges which texts of this type would present: A copyist could easily
come to read one of the wedges of m u as part of the numeral and thus get 58 instead
of 48.
The original figure of all three versions is thus (48). This agrees with other
evidence for the length of the reign of Shulgi, for we know 48 full date formulas for that ruler
(see Ungnad in RLA II 140-43. Ungnad gives 49 formulas, but we have no indication that
the third of his formulas, No. 21, '^year when the n a m - r i g -enu of Shulgi was installed
and invested,’’ belongs to Shulgi’s reign; it may equally well be a formula from the time of
123
Cbitical Edition of the Text, Col. viii &~19
6 reigneditsyears 7X60+6, days .. (emend
to its 7 years, 6 months, 15 days),
Urukwassmittenwithweapons;
its kingship to Ur was carried.
In Ur Ur-Nammu(k) (became) king
10 and reigned 18 years;
divine Shulgi, son of divine Ur-NammuCk),
reigned 46 (emend to 48) years;
divine Bur-Sin, son of divine Shulgi,
reigned 9 years;
15 Shu-Sin, son of divine Bur-Sin,
reigned 9 years;
I(b)bi-Sin, son of Shu-Sin,
reigned 24 years.
4 (emend to 5) kings
I(b)bi-Sin). Cf. also Thureau-Dangin in VII (1909-10) 184-85, who suggests 48 years
as a possibility, and the discussions of the problem by Langdon {OECT II 20, n, 1) and
Ungnad {op. dt. p. 135). See now also G. G. Hackman, Temple Documents of the Third
Dynasty of Urfroyn Urnma (^^Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies”
V [London, 1937]) p. 4, who proposes 48 years for Shulgi on much the same grounds as
those we have given above.
322 P5 and SU3+4 omit the determinative.
323 Ps adds - n a ; thus apparently Sus+4 also: - n [a] .
324 SU3+4 also has the determinative; Ps omits it.
325 Thus Ps also; SU3+4 probably omits.
326 Thus Ps also; SU3+4: 25. The text of WB and Ps is correct, as shown by existing date
lists; see Ungnad in RLA II 135 and 143-44 (Nos. 68-76).
327 Pfi and SU3+4 omit the determinative.
328 Thus SU3+4 also; Ps adds - n a - k 64 .
322 Pg: 7; SU3+4: 16; Sui's = 20+a:. The figure of WB is proved correct by the
date lists; see Ungnad in RLA II 135 and 144-45 (Nos. 77-85).
330 Thus Ps and SU3+4 also; Sui adds the determinative for deity.
331 Thus J also; Ps and Sui: 25; SU3+4: 15. In view of the close relationship between
Sui and SU3+4, it is probable that the ^ (15) of SU3+4 has developed from (25) through
a broken text intermediate between Su and Sus+4. How WB got its 24 is uncertain.
It may represent a damaged original 25; or, more likely, one of WB’s ancestors may have
been written before the last year of I(b)bt“Stn and therefore have included only 24 years
for this ruler.
332 Thus, even though 5 kings are listed. Since the easiest way to count the rulers in
such a list is to count the numerals, which stand out from the other signs, it is possible that
the miscounting was due to the identical figures for Bur-Sin and Shu-Sln. J, Ps, and SU3+4
ail have 5; Sui's ^ can be restored as 5.
124
The Sumerian King List
WB
Ps
Suj Su4
WB
Ps
Sui Su4
WB
Ps
Sui SU4
WB
Ps
Sui
WB
Ps
Sui
WB
Ps
Sui
WB
Ps
Sui
WB Pa Ps
Sui
WB Pa Ps
Li Sui
WB Pa Ps
Li Sui
WB Pa Ps
Sui
WB Pa Ps
Sui
WB Pa Ps
Sui
WB Pa Ps
WB Ps
WB Ps
WB Ps
Sui
20 m u - b i 108®'^® i b - as
^ j. £ki 334 „ iikul ba-an-sl g’’^®
nam-iugal-bi i-si-in^^-se ba-tilm
i - s i - i - 11 a s - b i - r-ra luga
mu 33®4o i-ag
25 ^ u-i-H-§u dumu is-bi-^^^ij.^
r a-ke4
m u 20®^® (emend to 10) i - ag
344i ^ d i n - "^d a - g a n dumu u » i -
lf-§u34®
mu 21®^^ [i-as]
s - m e - ^d a - g [a n dumu -din-
"^d a - g a n - k 04®^®]
30 mu [20®5i i-ag]
p « p £ . i ^ 0 ^ r dumu s -
me-‘^da-gan-k 04]®®^
mu [1P®4 i-aj
"^u r - Pn i n u r t a®®® m u 28®®® i] - as
^b u r - 1 [n dumu ‘^u r - ‘^n i n u r t] a - k 04
35 mu «’2T®®7 i-as
i - p 1 - [i t - ‘^Je n - H 1
338 This figure is right if the present figure for Shulgi is corrected to 48 (see n. 321 above).
Ps has 117, which agrees with its figures for individual reigns. SU3+4 has 123, one more than
the sum of its individual reigns. Sm has nm (120 +0:), which should probably be restored to
TT cm-i (123) to correspond to SU3+4.
334 Thus J, Ps, and Sui also; SU3+4 omits (cf. n. 335).
333 Ps and Sui omit; SU3+4 adds k i .
338 SU3+4 adds s u li u s o’* - [e n - g i - r a] m u - ^u n^ - [s i r] , ^^the foundation of
Sumer was torn out.'’
387 Thus P5 also; Sui adds the determinative for deity.
338 Thus Sui also; Pg adds the determinative for deity — a fact which is of interest for the
dating of that ms. (see p. 7, n, 12). For the divine name ir-ra both a reading Irra (i r -
r a) and a writing Era (e - r a) are attested. See Weidner in Arckiv Jut Keilschriftforschung
II (1924/25) 17, n. 4; Dossin in RA XXI (1924) 183; Deimel, SL, No. 50.10 and the litera-
ture there quoted.
338a name Ishbt-Irra would seem to represent the Akkadiam25ed form of an Amorite
*IaSbt-Irra; cf. the name lasbt-ila in Bmev, Die Ostkanaander (Leipzig, 1926) p. 30.
33® Ps and Sui add - ^ m .
3^® Thus Sui also; Ps’. 32,
3^*1 Sui also has the determinative; Ps omits it.
3^2 P5 adds the determinative for deity.
Ceitical Edition OF THE Text, Col. viii 20-36 125
20 reigned its 108 years.
IJr was sinitten with weapons;
its kingship to Isin was carried.
In Isin Ishbt-Irra^^*^ (became) king
and reigned 33 years;
25 divine Shu-ilishu, son of Ishbi-Irra,
reigned 20 (emend to 10) years;
I(d)din-Dagan, son of Shu-ilishu,
reigned 21 years;
Ishme-Dagan, son of I(d)din“Dagan,
30 reigned 20 years;
divine Lipit-Eshtar, son of Ishme-Dagan,
reigned 11 years;
divine Ur-Ninurta(k) reigned 28 years;
divine Bur-Sin, son of divine Ur-Ninurta(k),
35 reigned 21 years;
divine Lipit-Enlil,
Ps : 10; Sui : 15. As seen by Langdon, OECT II 20, n. 9, the figure 20 in WB is proba-
bly secondary (dittography of the -(-wedge). That WB derives from a text which had 10
here, as has P5, is indicated by WB's total, 203 years, which agrees with a reign of 10, not
20, years for Shti-ilishu.
344 Thus Ps also; Sui adds the determinative for deity.
345 Thus Ps also; P2 and Sui add the determinative for deity.
345 P5 adds - k 64 .
347 Thus P2 and P5 also; Sui: 25.
348 Thus Po also; P2 and Sui add the determinative for deity.
349 Thus P5; P2 and Sui add the determinative for deity.
359 Thus Ps; Sui omits.
351 P2: 20 over erasure; Ps*. 20; Sui:
352 Thus according to the photograph. P2 also uses the determinative for deity here;
Ps omits it.
353-353 Thus Ps and Sm; P2: - d i n - a- [g a n] , by dittography from preced-
ing line.
354 P2andPs: 11.
355 P2 adds d u m u § k u r - [ ] m u •‘i - [ ] *'b a P (?) [ ]•
355 p^: 28.
357 Le., 4QT; Pg also has 21.
126 The Sumerian King List
WB
F,
37
dumu bur-^^siii-
m U' 5
i - as
WB
F,
ti m u 8^®^ (var. 7)
i - as®®®
WB
Ps
n - i f 1 - b a - n i
mu
24,
i - Es
WB
Ps
40
a - a m - b i - i a
mu
l-as
WB
Ps
<^1361 - te-er-pi4-§a
mu
: 4 ■
I - as
WB
Ps
% r ~ d ue - k ti - g a
mu
4
l-as
WB
Pb
%in-ma-gir
mu
11
i - as
WB
13®®2 (emend to 14) 1 u g a 1
WB
45
mu-bi 203®®®
1 b - as
§ u n u " li r - % i n - § u b u r
358 pg omits.
359 Pg: 7, probably developed from 8 through a broken text; or Pg's text may descend
through an edition from the 7th year of this ruler.
385 Pfi adds another line: T(?) « [d i n] - e § 4 (?) - d- r^(?) i t u 6 [i n - as] , ^■I(d)din-
Eshtar(?) reigned C months.” The identification of this badly damaged name with
that of I(d)din-Eshtar, mentioned in the Tammuz hymn TRS I, No. 8:208, and perhaps in
Zimmern, Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit, 1. Reihe (1912) No. 26 vii 17, has
been proposed by Carl Frank, Kultlieder aus dem Ischtar-Tamuz-Kreis (Leipzig, 1939)
pp.lGSff.
Ceitical Edition of the Text, Col. viii 37-46
127
37 son of Bnr-SIti, reigned 5 years;
divine Irra-imi(t)ti reigned 8 (var. 7) years;
divine Enlil-bani reigned 24 years;
40 divine Zambia reigned 3 years;
divine Itdr-pfsha reigned 4 years;
divine Ur«Du(i)kuga(k) reigned 4 years;
divine Sin-magir reigned 11 years.
13 (emend to 14) kings
45 reigned its 203 years.
Belonging to N<k-Ninshubur.
361 Thus according to the photograph.
332 Thus according to the photograph. Actually 14 kings are listed. We can offer no
satisfactory explanation of this error.
333 Thus according to the photograph (as in Langdon’s transliteration!). Actually the
reigns listed total 213 years. The sum 203 is correct if the figure for Shti-ilishu is emended
to 10 as suggested above in n. 343. Ps, written later than WB, gives name and reign of
the successor of Stn-magir: da-'‘mP-iq**i-U-§u dumu ‘^sin-ma-gir mu 23
[in - as] , ‘^Damiq-ilishu, son of Sin-magir, reigned 23 years.^^ This king closes the 1st dynasty
of Isin. Ps’s total for the dynasty is [16] kings reigning 225 years and 6 months.
IV
COMPOSITION
In the preceding sections we have tried to trace the main lines in that proc-
ess of tradition which separates the first edition of the King List from the late
copies of it which are all we have preserved. It is therefore natural to consider
next the problems which center around this first edition, the original of the
King List. When and where was it composed? What were its sources, and
how were they utilized by the author?
DATE
Most of our manuscripts of the King List were written during the second
half of the dynasty of Isin, and the currently accepted view is that the list —
or, since some scholars consider the manuscripts separate compilations, the
^dists^' — was composed at that period.^ It has just been shown, hovrever, that
all of our manuscripts must ultimately derive from a single original, and we
have seen that they contain a considerable number of variants due to misread-
ings and errors in copying. So many misreadings and errors w^ould hardly
have developed had not a long period of tradition separated the copies from
the original, and it is therefore necessary to reconsider the question of when
the King List was composed.
Since the King List does not give any direct information as to its date, we
have to rely exclusively upon internal evidence — language, form, fundamental
ideas of the work, etc. It will be practical to consider first those characteristics
which help to establish a lower limit.
^ See e.g. Eduard Meyer, Die dliere Chronologie Babyloniens, Assyriens tind Agypteris (2.
Aufi.; Berlin, 1931) p. 38: 'Wie weit es freilich den Gelehrten zii Ende des dritten Jahr-
tausends noch moglich war, den wahren geschichtlichen Zusammenhang einigermassen
festzuhalten oder wiederherzustellen, bleibt fraglich genug'^; E. Unger in OLZ XXXVII
(1934) 363: ^Man sttitzt sich .... mehr auf die sekundton Kdnigslisten; diese sind aber
erst in semitisch-aitbabylonischer Zeit, um 2100 v. Chr., abgefasst und verhalten sich stark
tendenzids”; 0. E, Ravn, Bahylonske og assyriske Kongers historiske Indskrifter (K^ben-
havn, 1934) p. 27 : ^^Sumereme selv har nedlagt deres opfattelse af vor periode i dynastiske
lister, der kompileredes omkring 2000 f, Only Sidney Smith, EHAy p. 29, holds a dif-
ferent view. He assumes correctly that our present versions depend upon a single original
which must be of earlier date. He does not, however, suggest any definite period for this
original.
128
Composition
129
The Collective i - b - LAL
In summing up the various dynasties five of our manuscripts make use of
the form i - b - lal (f b - as) for 3d pi. preterit active, transitive. Only two,
Ps and S, have instead the form i - n - lal - e § (i n - a k - e s) ; and a single
one, K, uses i - n - lal - m e - e s (i n - as - m e - e s) . Examining the oc-
currence of these forms in texts outside the King List, we find that they be-
long to different stages in the history of the Sumerian language. The form
generally used in older texts is i - b - lal, ^ whereas i - n - lal - e s , which
is rare in the older texts, becomes the standard form during the 3d dynasty
of Ur and keeps this position down to the Hammurabi period. Then it is in
its turn supplanted by i - n - LAL - m e - e §
The point during the 3d dynasty of Ur at which i-b-LAL disappears
and i - n - lal - e § takes its place can be fixed fairly exactly to the reign of
Shu-Sln, as will be seen from the list on page 130 of datable occurrences of the
two forms during the periods of the 3d d 3 masty of Ur and of Isin-Larsa,^
As is shown by the list, i-b-LAL disappears during the reign of Shfi-
Sln. Why, then, do we find this form in our manuscripts of the King List
written as late as the end of the Isin period, when i - n - lal - e § was the
standard form? The answer cannot be doubtful: The original of the King List
must have been composed before the reign of Shti-Sin, when i - b - lal was
still current. From the original this form had then been mechanically handed
down from copy to copy until it reached our manuscripts written in the Isin
period. Only in a few cases have copyists taken offense at the antiquated
form and modernized the text to agree with Isin-Larsa standards. The result
is the form i - n - lal - e § which we find in Pe and S. A still later redac-
tion produced the correction to i-n-LAL-me-e§ in K.
From the use of the form i-b-LAL we can thus conclude that the origi-
nal King List was composed earlier than the reign of Shti-Sin of Ur.
2 Gf. Poebel in AJSL L (1933/34) 156, n. 7.
3 GSG § 456.
The list is based on the following publications: Giustino Boson, Tavoleite cuneiformi
sumere, degli archivi di Drehem e di Djoha, delV ultima dinasiia di Ur (Milano, 1936); Niko-
laus Schneider, Die Drehem- und Djd^-Urhunden der Strasshurger Universitdts- und Landes-
hibliothek {An, Or, 1 [Roma, 1931]) and Die Drehem- und Djolpatexie im Kloster Montserrat
{Barcelona) {An, Or, VII [Roma, 1932]) ; Edward Chiera, Legal and Administrative Documents
from Nippur {PBS VIII 1 [1914]) and Old Babylonian Co7dracts {PBS VIII 2 [1922]);
Alfred Pohl, Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden der III. Dynastie von Ur {TMH n.F. I-Il
[1937]); F. Pelagaud, ^^sd-tiUa, textes juridiques de la seconde dynastie d’Our,'' Babyhniaca
III (1910) 81-132; H. de Genouillac, 'Textes juridiques de F^^poque d’Ur,’^ RA Vlil (1911)
1-32; F. Thureau-Dangin, "Notes assyriologiques'' XXI, RA X (1913) 93-97. It should
give a representative pictui'e of the usage during the period in question.
o
CO
: '"*0 :■
': 6 ; 0 ;
.■■■"'«■ 'g' "
cil
■tH
■ ■ oa O
■;,V. <M'.'
'.lO' ^
,T-i„,. ,0'
J> P-l
C h-T
■a>
§
fS
■CO ■
fe '
^ .03
Oi
O r-i
eo t>-
■I
>H i>
>>
il
' iM
«X5
CO CO
iO lO
(M (M
6 6
^ !z;
a .
0 a
« o
fi' -
1 ^
o p
W pH
o
e
« '§
..2 K
3 rO* 1 *^
Ph Cq h-h
/ai'
>02
t
cj3
>02
a ^
o o
s s
p
Ph P-i
CSJ
6
Jz;
p.
o
Ph
CD t^
CO' i> CD ” ;•
o CD
. «<;t< JUO CD rH O
CO CO CO ^ T~*
o 6 6 6 '6
•« 1-* "to *►*
*?S' 'S O O O
^ ^
o o o o o
3 3 3 3 3
o o o o p
Ph Ph P-I pH Ph
CQ
0 rH
J 0 "»^
>'.g^
' E t-
, CD P
AhwJ* Swi/
Csl r-t.
00 S
6 ' 0
0 '3
iz;
0 ■ O'
H
a B
hH M
> !>
> >
CT'
> t>
^ S
Kl 05
Cl, Cl,
CQ CO
Cl, a,
S3
?? ?i
a, CL,
CO
<M,
nu
p''
p,
^ 1 >
'CD'
"t^
■ "'"d'.'
'.' ,1^,"
}>
S 2
A,
p.
si
‘ >02 ^
, P
>02
0
>02
0
>02
0
1
■ >02
0
• fH
1
XZ 2
'0
1
S >02
>02 P
>02
>02
*
HP
P
1
■p
1 Fj
S 3
>02 /f-f
0 02
■p
>02
^0
>0
0
>P
0
>P
0
-P
1
"P 0
>02 I
0 «
1 >*®
0 ^
1 >
0
1
1
P
P
S
^lH
.J-t.
s
t
p
p..
p ( 1
P 02 P
P « •
1 '
^0 P
P P
I 1
D
P
t
1
• rH
HP
1
1
-P
1
■P
1
I
■*■=>
1
-P
i
p
1
.2 'O
1 •
/0 0
X 5 '
. S
,-de
a-an
^0
TS
1
P> ■-
P
0
p
1 D •
/p P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p
.fh <<e 3
® a
*’03 sjQ
"cs ,.
FV P
/p.
1
' rt-' ■
..p
1
S
P
-p
p
P og *
*—4
ft a
P
P
P
1
P
1
P
t
P
1
p
1
ft >02
f r
ftT
I f-
ft
pSmi
. t
..•'^ "'.5?
g
t
D
! ’ FH
D 2
I >
D 01
D
D
0
D
D
S a
05 D
05 ^
3 ISP
05
1
' /fH
>02
D
* 1 ^
> 0 '
>m H 2 S
xc
>02
>02
>02
XZ 2
>02
>02
•fH .fH
DQ. 02 ':
.a^a
p ‘p
02 02
, <S>. <D
" P :■
4H . .4^.
'.;’P.''t 3 ■."'■
II
Pi
I I
II
"ss
..o:.
I
02 <»
J I
&&
o u
<M CO
rh Hst*
ed 03
»>j ^
TS
>
I
P
<D -
P 02
S
tw" -P'' :
O «
02 D
« o
3 ^
O H
g §
p
, ..jjg. ,
: D
2
p
>
I
CQ
C2
c c?
=P E
0 ^
?>. P,
1 ^
“ ^
«u ^
—I cS
■ ip p
r— , ^
D
I ^
P 02
p, >> 5
P ®
g
D T3'
:P P
i s
a
=H 3
I
S § '
^ ^ p
II J
H H H
,S ^
p ^
p 3
0 0
> C2
*feJD 2
> 2
o 3 c 3
P P
§ S
0 O
02 QQ
JH ?-(
0 0
Ph O.
1 I
H H
2>
‘0
0
0
1
P
§
g
ft
I
:: -P
P P
D >
3 ^
g §
CD ^
M 0
P
> g
P »P
-:'P"C-
P :; P
CD p 0
> 0
*0 ,P '0
0
. I
p P
s „
I fe
0 ft
ft o
g 2
,^'3 ,
H H
rH (Nl
1
P - ^
c ":P:'-
02
a
2 aa
P
e
bC 0
§ ^
f I
rt o
o
2
0 ft
0^0
0 0 0
N .F .'M
'p : P P .
02
02
bO
§
£.'■ 'P'"'.:
-2 '.O '
p p
II
§' .» '.
02 -P
M IH
0 P
:p4.::ft:...
o o
02
02
P g
.v:p^.'. ft ..;
O p
;.: " vP
0.'.
0 , ".'>•;■'
o *0
F 0
'■■..p^ ■ .0'...
I i
o o
0 0
ft ft
o o
I
p
ft
I
*-p
■m
B
■"'■':'..;:>;:''g':':':...'^-:'^^''^''.
3
p
g
p
p
W
3
P
Q
CoMPosi’noN
131
, The :Diseegai2d OF Subject Element -,ii* and “Causative”
The conclusion that the King List was composed before Shil-Sln^s reipi
is corroborated by another feature of the list, the treatment of the subject ele-
ment -n- and the “causative’.' - n - in the verbs. Three manuscripts— P 5,
S, and K— give the verb “he reigned” as in -as. The subject element of
the 3d singular, - n - , is here expressed in writing. Ail other manuscripts,^
however, ignore this -n- and write i - as , “he reigned.” A similar differ-
ence can be noted in the case of the “causative” -n-, which appears in
b a - a n - s i g , “it was smitten” (WB), ba-an-kdr, “it was changed”
(Ps), ba-an-tiim, “it was carried” (Ps), and elsewhere, whereas it is
ignored in the corresponding forms b a - s i g , “it was smitten” (Li, Sui,
SU3+4, and J), ba-kur, “it was changed” (S), and ba-tiim, “it was
carried” (WB, P2, Li, S, Sui, Sug, SU3+4, and J).
Examining the treatment of subject element - n - and “causative” - n -
in inscriptions other than the King List, we find again that the difference
corresponds to a change in usage which took place during the period of the
3 d dynasty of Ur. The crucial point here is the reign of Bur-Sin L Before
this ruler the “causative” - n - does not appear, and the subject element
- n - is limited to a single case, namely the form i 11 - d u - a , “who built.”^*"
With Bur-Sin I, however, both the subject element - n - and the “causa-
tive” - n - suddenly appear in a number of verbs, and writings expressing
these elements soon become the established norm. The sudden change is well
illustrated by the accompanying table of relevant forms appearing in the his-
torical inscriptions of the 3 d dynasty of Ur.
The forms in which the subject element -n- and the “causative” -n -
are not expressed belong to the time before Bur-Sin I. When we find such
forms in our manuscripts of the King List as late as the end of the Isin dy-
nasty, where they do not belong, we must therefore conclude that they have
been inherited from an original composed when such forms were normal,
that is, before the reign of Bur-Sin.
We keep — for practical reasons — ^the term ^‘causative - n - introduced by Poebel
in GSG §§ 521 ff. That it actually is an accusative element has been suggested by Poebel,
ibid. § 526. On its identity with the subject element (subject-accusative element) see Rudolf
Scholtz, Die Struktur der Sumerischen engeren Verbalprdfixe (Inaugural-Dissertation; Bres-
lau, 1931) p. 44.
5 On a few isolated cases of i n - as in Li see pp. 54 f.
Note also the isolated instance m a - a n - d Un , “he commanded me” (Gudea Cyl.
A ii 15). This form does not show the subject element elsewhere in Gudea’s inscriptions.
From a still earlier time there is the exceptional m an-dh ka an-g4i (Stele of Vul-
tures xvii 5 f . ; var. vu a-dh U4-a-g4i, ibid. rev. v 28 f.) discussed by Poebel in ZA
n.F. II (1925) 3 f.
m u - b a - a 1 dug^^ SAKf p. 188 i i
13;C/^ri,No.446
i 4, 8, 12, and 16
m u - n a - b a - a 1 dug for him'^ UET I, Nos. 42 : 9,
45:10, 46:11
e 00 • *
_ 00 ^ o
^ ^ -*»-Q
00 j-H
'I 'o'es'g
, 'XJ • •>. " * •
fed s o:; CO
— « <?o
cq -«s HH
••S :s §8 S
§ cf ^
^ ^ «3
. O y^.^ "
j£^ ^ 00 tH .
ft <0
- XJ 'ft .
^ S S 2
w 03 03 r-t
'ft ^ i>. ^
B f ft: rH
^ ft: CO ft
2 ro ^ !Z
K* fO
I
S
CO to
B
XJ .
s ^
•ri xS
o ^ Id
^ CM O -S
e CO ^
S ^ d 6
^ 'rti
^ iid CM lis:{
to q to CO ^ q
00 oq
ftd d ftd CO S cj
^ ft ft
ft a ft '•■=* ft ft SR
o 3 o ^ g g:^
o ft o ft
ftO f-( ftO ■4^ ft« o ^
CD «l2 CO .3 ^ 05
jft rft ftl ftd
^5 o
SN g
oQ
ft
r u
rft>
-*3 <0
rt ®
H GQ n
yH
► •Hi
.ft
-5'
■■!■' "
ft
^3 ft
-< ft
ft 3 A
?5C
iaC
bJO
t
o3
4*
I
<33
'1
t
03
bC
ft
;I, ■
1
ft
^ A.-^
g fl
ft
ft
ft
si
ft
ft
^ O VOS
ft
ft
a
.ft
a
ft
:§ .& a
c o
a
s
a
ft
a
« S
03 **-*
132
r-i
A
CQ
IN.
C^'
I
' 00 ' /
c&
>
:t'
.(M
' ft
k^ o
tQ:
'I.
'^'S
o s
rCi ^
Xi
a r-«
■S 3 ~
s 1 J
<D
X
o ,
ft
XJ
O)
a
.2
05
^ k
s ,o
o ^
■ M '
• 4=4
CO Tt<
ft ft ft
1^ 1 M M"
CQ &3
g
0
1
OQ
a
P5
TS
i=i
03
o3
CO 00
rH Oa
' .Jd
rH ^ ^
ft ^ o
ft ^
^11
■N. .
o
■ft
ft d ■
o .S
ft ft
TO
^ s
Ec? ®*
00
. ♦S
t- ^
CO ^
■ . ^ (N
^ JZJ i>«.
rt
cS
I
cS
a
I
d
a
o3
ft
ca
cq
d
ft ■
§
ft
' S ::
ft a
ft ^
d ^
a ft
ft
IN
CD
cS
ft
«
S 3
0
I
d ,
a
00
ft
ft
OQ
5
.S 5
13 "s
O ■. • ^ ft
02 d
P Zi O 5s
5 i 2 ^ ' .o
ft S ft '+-^
O ft o .ft
g
-T 3
<y
J:;:)
Ill
d
-VHi'-: „"'"
ft
■■'. ■
1
.-..ft
; , ' 1
...ft
M
1
•i
cs xi
&10
,bfl
o3
■ -t:?. .
d -•
ft
d
ft
I
o3
i 1
ft ft o3
" M; ■ ^
'''■';fi8 , '
o3
d
■ ■■ ■ -1
o3
„' * ft ;"
. !d
..:"d, ■„
ft
1
d
xJ ns d
d
d
d
d
a *
'ft'
.'.■'■■,':dT'"''.'T'.:
ft ft
1
> 1 1
■■■::ft'^'ft''ft
d
1
d
a
1 ■
. ,;ftT^ ■■
^ ., .rt ',; .■:
.;■ ft .' ft
a
1
'■"'ft,,'':..^...' •'.:':■
I 1
d d
a
a a a
a
a
IS
a
ft
a a
133
Sh0-Sin — Coniiimed
■ O' ■
^
O HH .
■ ■ /l\*S ^ ^ .
■■S 3 ' J ■■■Q ■
^ ^
' t- g w' oJ
rS-oS^ o
g f-l 05 O
~ ag « N g <N
* * O Ti QO O ■ , ^ ^ cj
^ ^ ^ ^ n!
rr^ 05 03 ^
O rH
3 52 i 00
s M i
CO ^ o
o kT lO hO
SO ••
•• 05
O 00
05 ,C<J
c<s .
(° jz;
M
o
CP
c 3
bc
o 3
c«
*>
.s
0
<P
1 J 3
O
I
s
eg
1
be
0
bC
!
>CQ
1
0
a
oi
Cm I
c3 ’V
•IH
(
1 ^
1
^f-^
o
c3
42
S
42
^ S O CO ^
y-vl 1.*^ L® D CO ^
tjrRcj f><£5>^oQi.,
3 R S ix! i in S
SM S§
' o' § rH S
g '^ •“ S
OO lO «N
g ® d 6
^ ^ ^ ^
^ oT M ^ 2
^ o H ^
feq 05 >1 &q c3
K) kD
134
COMPOSITIOH
135
The evidence from the subject element -n- and the ''causative” -n-
thus corroborates and amplifies that from the collective i - b - lal. The
latter indicated that the original w older than Shu-Sin; now we see that
the original must be older than Shu-Sin's father and predecessor, Bur-Sin.
Traces OF Early Redactions
The dating thus far obtained— earlier than Bur-Sin and Shu-Stn— is con-
firmed and our terminus ante quern moves still higher up when we consider
the evidence furnished by traces of earlier redactions which can be found in
the manuscripts. As we have mentioned before, the concluding sections in our
sources tend to show a certain unevenness of style. The originals which the
scribes used would naturally as a rule be somewhat older than the scribes' own
time, so that it was necessary for them to add a certain amount of material
to their copies to bring the record up to date. In these additions which the
scribes themselves had to compose and which they could not just cop3^ sign by
sign from the original their own stylistic peculiarities are likely to show. By
paying attention to the sudden appearance of such peculiarities one is often
able to identify an addition and thereby to determine where an earlier version
ended. A single example will serve to illustrate this.
In P5 the subject element - e is used regularly whenever a name is fol-
lowed by a patronymic: N. d u m u P. - k 64 (i.e., P. - (a) k - e) . Toward
the very end of the list, however, from [1 i - p f - i t - "^e n - 1 1 1] d u [m u
b] u r - ^s i n (!) (iv 15 ) to the last king, d a - m [i] - i q - i - 1 1 - s u d u m u
^s 1 n - m a - g i r (!) (iv 23 ), this - k 64 is omitted (see p. 32 , n. 65 ). The
explanation of the change is clear. A scribe who did not himself use this - k 04
has followed an original where it was regularly employed; copying sign by
sign he mechanically took over its - k €4 , but when his original stopped
and he had to write an additional section to bring the list up to date, he was
no longer directly influenced by the original and his own stylistic habits nat-
urally asserted themselves. Therefore we do not find - k 64 used in this sec-
tion. Now if we can identify the section from Lipit-Enlil on as an addition
to bring the list up to date, the older version from which the scribe copied
must have ended with Bur-Sin of Isin, and the natural inference is that it was
written under that ruler.
Observations similar to those here made in P5 can be made in WB also.
But while P5 tells us only what we already know, that copies of the King List
were being made at the time of Bur-Sin II of Isin, so that the original must
be still older, WB adds important new information. We have discussed earlier
an interesting change in the formula for introducing new d3masties observable
136
The Sxjmeeian King List
in WB (p. 67). The crucial points of this discussion may be repeated and slight-
ly elaborated here. In the main part of this text new dynasties are introduced
by the formula N. lugal-a.m, 'Tn A N. was (or 'becameO
king.” The last two dynasties, however, the 3d dynasty of Ur and the dy-
nasty of Isin, are introduced differently: A^‘(- a) N. 1 u g a 1 , ^Tn A N.
(was) king.” The identifying verb -km, *Vas,” is here omitted, and
the nouns to be identified, N. and 1 u g a 1 , are merely placed side by side.
To assume that the author of the list, who has carefully written 1 u g a 1 - a m
in dynasty after dynasty, should suddenly and for no reason have changed
his literary style only two dynasties before the end is obviously absurd. The
change in style must indicate a different hand, and we can therefore conclude
that a later copyist has added this section to bring his copy up to date.
Further proof of this conclusion is to be found in the relation of the section
in question to the first part of WB, the antediluvian section. We have seen
above (pp. 55-64) that a variety of indications proves that the antediluvian
section is secondary. Now the scribe who inserted that section had certain
stylistic peculiarities which crop up every time he is not merely copying but
adds on his own. One such peculiarity is his preference for constructions such
as A^K- a) nam-lugall-a (written nam-lugal-la), “In A
(was) the kingship,” and A^^- a) N. 1 u g a 1 , “In A N. (was) king,” in
which the two nouns to be identified are merely placed side by side and the
identifying verb -^m , “was,” is omitted. Comparing our change in for-
mula at the end of the list, we see that it consists of the introduction of this
very peculiarity. The man who added the antediluvian section is also re-
sponsible for the last part of the list; his literary peculiarities appear in both
places.
That the closing section of WB was added later can thus be considered
certain. Not only do we find here a change of style which shows that a different
hand is at work, but the character of the change itself links the section as
closely as possible with a known interpolation, the antediluvian section. But
if we can thus detach the section from the beginning of the 3d dynasty of Ur
as a later addition, we have left an original version which came to an end with
Utu-hegal of Uruk and which can therefore be assigned to the reign of that
ruler.
The evidence which we have thus far considered has carried the date at
which the King List can have been composed a considerable way back from
the time to which our present copies belong, the end of the Isin period. The
language used in the list shows that the author must have written before the
middle of the 3d dynasty of Ur, before Shti-Sin and Bur-Sin. Now we have
Composition
137
found evidence of a version from the reign of Utu-hegal, wlio preceded that
dynasty. Is this at last the original version, or must we seek still farther back?
The answer depends upon whether other features in the King List indicate
this period as the probable time of origin or make a still earlier date likely.
The Term u k u 1 .... s i g
We have already earlier mentioned that the formula ^‘^tukul
b a - (a n -) s i g . . . . , ^The city A was smitten with w^eapons dom-
inates both of the principal branches of the tradition. This means that it dates
back to a point in the tradition at which these two branches had not yet sep-
arated. We have, of course, no way of proving that this point is identical with
the original; but, inasmuch as our versions are fairly numerous and come
from widely separated parts of Babylonia, it seems reasonable to assume that
a point where this tradition was still but a single stream cannot have been
far from the source. Serious corrections of language and style are accordingly
not likely to have been introduced.
Examining the history of the term u k u 1 . . . . s i g in Sumerian lit-
erature, we find that the older texts, from E-Anna(k)-tum to Sargon of
Agade, do not use this term at all. The idea “to defeat’’ is at this time almost
exclusively expressed by ofN-KAR ....si.® With Sargon of Agade the first
traces of our phrase begin to appear; 1 li A^' - a (k) - d a «‘^t u k u 1 e-
d a - s i g , “he fought with the man of the city A,” is a common expres-
sion in Sargon’s inscriptions.^ It will be noted that u k u 1 . . . . s i g
does not yet serve to express the idea “to defeat,” which is still gIn-kar ....
si;® but, construed with -da, ukul....sig is a term for “to
fight,” “to come to blows with.”®
The meaning “to defeat” which «*^t u k u I . . . . s i g has in the King
List occurs fairly late in other inscriptions. It appears first in the inscrip-
tions of Gudea: s'Hukul uru an-sa-an elam^' mu-sig, “he
smote with weapons (i.e., defeated) the cities of Anshan and Elam.”^® After
that, in the period of Isin and Larsa, it is frequent in date formulas from
Larsa, for example Gungunum, year 19: ki-su-lu-ilb-gar m^-
® E-Anna(k)“tum: gIn-kar b ! - s i (e.g. SAK, pp. 18 vii 3 and ix 2; 20 iii 14, 20, 24;
22 vi 20, vii 2, iii 13 and 19; and 24 iv 13 and 15) ; En-temena: g!n-kar i - n i - s i (SAK,
p. 38 iii 14); En-e(n)tar-.zi(d) : gIn-kab bl - si (RA VI [1904-7] 139, AO 4238 obv. iii 4).
7 E.g. Poebei, PBS IV 1, pp. 173-74 i 16-19, i 36-40, and passim,
® E.g, PBS V, No. 34 obv. i 20-21, i 41-42, and passim: gIn-kAr e - n i - s i .
® This difference in usage was first pointed out by Thureau-Dangin, La chronohgie dm
dynasties de Sumer et d’Accad^ p. 18.
Gudea Statue B {SAK, p. 70) vi 64.
138
The Sitm'Ebiak King List
al»gi 4 -a ®'®tukul ba-an-sllg] (UET I, No. 265 obv. 13~14; RLA
II 154 h and 156, No. 112); Abi-sare(?): mu ki-su“lu«ub 4 "gar
i - s i - i - n a u k u i b a - a [n - s i g] (Thureau-Dangin, La chrono-
logic ... , p, 53, 1. 42; RLA II 151, L 42, and 157, No. 129); Sumu-EI: mu
.,..k[i-s]u«lu-ub 4 -gar ka-zal-lu^^ s'Hukul ba-an-[s!g]
(RLA II 151, 1. 49, and 157, No. 135; cf. VET I, No. 249) ; Warad-Sin, year 2:
ijL <ki!->su-lu-'‘iib-gar [. . . . - 1] i - b a- al larsam'^'^
u k u 1 b a - s i g {UET I, No. 266 i UiRLA 11 154 a and 160, No. 192).
Since «'^tukul .... si g in the meaning defeaV^ thus makes its
first appearance under Gudea and since the King List uses it in this sense,
the term suggests that the King List is to be dated to that ruler or later. Now
we have seen that the lower limit for the date of the King List can be placed
in the reign of Utu-hegal. Gudea, who lived at the end of the Gutian period,
seems to belong to the generation of, or immediately before, Utu-hegal.^^*'
We arrive therefore at approximately the time of this ruler as the most likely
period for the composition of the King List.
Basic Ideas in the King List
The evidence from the term ^^^t ukul....sig, pointing to the time
of Utu-hegal as that in which the King List originated, does not stand alone.
Comparison of the King List with the great inscription of Utu-hegal in which
he relates his victory over Gutium^^ shows striking and significant similarities
Reasons for placing Gudea ^^during the latter years and after the fail of the Gutian
dynasty” have been summarized by Gadd in The Early Dynasties of Sumer and Akkad, p. 32.
To them may be added the following facts: (1) The similarity between the language of
Gudea’s inscriptions and that of Ur-Nammu(k)’s and Shulgi’s is extremely close. Note e.g.
such a special feature as the omission of the subject element - n » everywhere except in
one form of the verb dh, ‘^to build” (in-dii-a, ^Vho built”), where it regularly
occurs. (2) Gudea’s wide-reaching trade expeditions would hardly have been possible un-
der the Gutians. As we know from the Utu-hegal inscription {RA IX [1912] 111-20 and X
[1913] 98-100), Gutium had closed the vital trade route passing from the Mediterranean
across Assyria down through Akkad and Sumer to the Persian Gulf: ^Toth banks of the
Tigris he (i.e., Tirigan) had seized, southward in Sumer he had barred the paths, northward
he had barred the routes, on the highways of the land long grass he had let grow.” This
route was reopened by Utu-hegaFs victory over Gutium, and it can be only to that event
that Gudea is referring when he says (Statue B v 21-27) : '^When he (i.e., Gudea) built the
temple of Ningirsu(k) did Ningirsu(k), his beloved king, open up the road from the upper
to the lower sea.”
RA IX 111-20 and X 98-100. The authenticity of the Utu-hegal inscription, which is
known only from later copies, has recently been questioned by Giiterbock {ZA n.F. VIII
[1934] 14), who is of the opinion that the disposition and style of the text preclude its being
a historical inscription: ^‘Der Verfasser des Textes hat zwar den offiziellen Titel Utu-^egals
gekannt, der Text ist aber nach Aufbau und Stil offenbar ein literarisches Werk, keine Konigs-
inschrift; von einer solchen ist nicht einmai die tesere Form ubernommen.” This view we
Composition
139
in ideology and language. The author of the King List worked, as has often
been mentioned, on the theory that Babylonia was and always had been a
single kingdom. Within the country the capital could change from one city
to another, but there was never more than one king at a time. The ruler of a
city or a province could become king only by defeating the existing capital
cannot share. The Utu-hegai inscription gives a remarkably detailed account of a campaign,
but its disposition (Aufbau) is in no way different from the disposition of accounts of cam-
paigns found in other royal inscriptions. We may compare e.g. the account which En-temena
gives (SAKy pp. 36“38 n i 13-ii 26) of the
of Ush:
En-temena Inscription
Misdeeds of enemy (i 13--21)
Divine orders to fight him (i 22-27)
Victorious battle (i 28-31)
Results of victory: true boundary
re-established; tribute to be paid by
enemy (i 32-ii 26)
wars between Lagash and Umma in the time
Utu-hegal Inscription
Misdeeds of enemy (i 1-14)
Divine orders to fight him (i 15-23)
Preparations for decisive battle (ii 16-iv 3) :
a) Utu-hegal seeks support of his city
god, Inanna(k).
b) Itinerary of march to battlefield: de-
parture from Uruk; purpo.se of campaign
made known to troops in E-Ishkur(ak; ; Gu-
tian messengers taken captive in Bar-Iiitab-
ba(k); arrival in Muru; Utu-hegal seeks sup-
port of Ishkur of Muru.
Victorious battle (iv 4-S)
Results of victory: capture of Tirigan and
re-establishing of autonomy of Sumer (iv 9
to end)
As will be seen, the disposition of both narratives is practically the same: (1) misdeeds
of enemy, (2) divine orders to fight, (3) victorious battle, (4) results of victory. That Utu-
hegal, who had to lead his troops far afield to come to grips with the enemy, tells also of the
events which took place during that part of the campaign, whereas the En-temena account
goes directly to the decisive battle, is only natural; for the battle in the En-temena account
took place near Lagash itself, and little could have happened on the way to the battlefield.
Nor does the style of the Utu-hegal inscription differ in any way from that of other Ms-
torical inscriptions. It is very vivid and uses direct speech a great deal ; but a vigorous char-
acterization of the enemy, Gutium, as “a viper of the hills, enemy of the gods, who had car-
ried the kingship of Sumer off to the mountains, who had filled Sumer with evil,” etc. is not
much different from En-temena's description of Ii of Umma, 'Tl, e n s i (k) of Umma, a
robber of fields and lands, always speaking evil,” etc., which appears in the inscription just
mentioned {SAK^ p. 40 iv 19-”23).
There is thus neither in disposition nor in style any basis for separating the Utu-hegai
inscription from other royal inscriptions. Its authenticity is indicated also by its language;
for, although the scribal habits of later copyists show in the use of the subject element - n -
and the “causative” - n - , such features as the use of the old collective i - b - lal (e.g.
iii 7-8: uru-ni Id-dili-gim egir-ra-ni ba-ab-ds, “his city as one man
followed behind him”) and the use of the phrase gIn-kae ....si to express the defeat
of the Gutian forces are rarely found in inscriptions of the 3d dynasty of Ur, which followed
Utu-hegal, or in still later periods. Lastly we may call attention to the highly peculiar and
irregular ruling of tablet AO 6018 (RA IX 112 f.) which contains our copy. Gases contain-
ing one line of writing alternate with cases which have two, three, and even twenty-two
lines. This irregularity is not suggested by the content of the text and is indeed explicable
only if it represents the original ruling of a text written between and around the figures on
140
The StTMEEiAN- King List
and carrying (b a - 1 u m) the “kingship*^ to his own residence. Now the
same view meets us in the Utu-hegal inscription. Like the King List, Utu-hegal
knows only one “kingship/^ that which has been “carried’^ (ba-tiim)
to the mountains by Gutium, It is only by defeating Gutium that Utu-hegal
can bring it back into the hands of Sumer. Even the characteristic phraseol-
ogy, n a m - 1 u g a 1 construed with t d m , ^Ho carry/^ is common to
both texts, a point especially significant, as this construction occurs no-
where else.
To the evMence of the phrase si§t ukul .... si g, the ideology of the
King List, and the wording of that ideology is added the fact that the pe-
riod of Utu-hegal in itself constitutes the logical period for such a work as the
King List to have been conceived and carried out. After long subjection under
foreign barbarians Utu-hegal had in the decisive battle near Muru crushed
the Gutian forces completely, restored the old independence, and ^^brought
back the kingship of Sumer into its own hands.'^^^ This new-won freedom must
have powerfully stimulated Sumerian national feeling and must have awakened
interest in Sumer’s glorious past, in the history of that ^^kingship” which had
now come back again. It would thus naturally inspire the production of such
a work as the King List, which is an effort to trace and present just that
history.
Conclusions
We have thus seen first of all that the language of the King List shows that
it cannot have been written later than the middle of the 3d dynasty of Ur,
while traces of earlier versions move this limit back to the reign of Utu-hegal,
to whom the earliest traceable version can be dated. Against a still earlier
date, before Utu-hegal, speaks the use of the expression «'^t ukul....sig,
which appears in the King List as a term for ^To defeat” but is not known to
us in this meaning before Gudea, who belongs to the generation of, or im-
mediately before, Utu-hegal. The same conclusion is indicated by a consider-
ation of the ideas on ^ ^kingship” underlying the King List. These ideas are
the very same which we meet in Utu-hegaPs own inscription and they are
there expressed in the same characteristic phraseology as in the King List, a
a relief, where the division into cases and columns would necessarily be irregular. That the
Utu-hegal inscription originally was written on a relief is already indicated by the closing
hnes of col. iv, which obviously have reference to an accompanying pictorial representation
of a type similar to the relief of Anu-bantnl (G. Contenau, Manuel d’archiologie orimtale II
[Paris, 1931] 764, Fig. 541) ; cf. also a seal impression of Ilushu-ilia of Eshnunna(k) (DIP
XLIII, Fig. 100).
i2jKAIXn3iv36.
GoMPOsmaN
141
phraseology met with nowhere else. Finally, we have seen that the time of
Utu-hegal, to which all our evidence points, indeed provides the best imagi-
nable background politically and in ideology for such a work as the King List
to be conceived; for pride in new independence and in the ^'kingship’^ which
had been brought back must have furnished a mighty impulse to set forth the
history of this ^^kingship,^' that is, to compose our King List. There can thus
be no serious doubt that the composition of the King List should be dated
to the reign of Utu-hegal. ‘
PLACE
While a number of indications in the Eung List point to when it was written,
very little can be said about where it originated. It is hardly possible to do
more than make a plausible guess.
Since it is obviously easiest to get hold of sources for the history and older
rulers of a city in that city itself, we can perhaps conclude that the city in
which the author of the King List lived must have been one of the three which
are dealt with in greatest detail in liis work, namely Kish, Uruk, and Ur.
The second of these, Uruk, was the city of Utu-hegal; and, since the inspiration
for the King List is most probably to be sought in the revival of Sumerian na-
tional pride under this ruler, it seems most natural to look for the origin of
the list where this feeling must have been strongest, in the capital itself from
which the war of independence started. If we must guess, Uruk seems the
most likely place of the three.
SOURCES
General Character op the Sources
An inquiry into the problem of what sources the author of the Kang List
can have used for his work must start from an examination of that work itself.
By defining the types of material represented and by comparing these with
Sumero-Akkadian literature as a whole, we should be able to determine which
genres within that literature contain such material and can therefore have
supplied it to our author.
The material found in the King List can in general be described as of a
historical character. It divides readily into two distinctive types: (a) infor-
mation concerning names of kings and the number of years each of them
reigned and (h) “notes^^ added to the names of certain kings giving details
concerning themselves and their exploits. We may consider first the material
found in the ^^notes.”
142
The Sxjmebian King List
SOURCES OP THE ^^NOTES”
The ^^notes^^ appearing in the King List are
а) e-ta-na sip ba-eii-d^ Id kur-kur mu-iiii-gi-na
V'.lu g"a;l-^iIn '(ii' W-l^)
“Etana, a shepherd, the one who to heaven ascended, the one who consolidated
V' all lands, 'became king.^’
б) en-me-en-bdra-ge-si Id ma-da elam^^-ma sisi^ukul-bi
Ib-ta-an-gdr lugal-am (ii 35--38)
‘^En-me(n)-barage-si, the one who carried away as spoil the weapons of the land of
Elam, became kingl^
c) mes-ki"dg-ga-§e-er dumu %tu en-^m lugal-lm mu 324
i-as meS“ki-dg“ga«§e-er ab-ba ba-an-tu h^^^**sag-§d
ba-en (hi M)
“Mes-kiag-gasher, son of Utu, became high priest and king and reigned 324 years.
Mes-kiag-gasher went into the sea and came out (from it) to the mountains^’
d) en-me-kdr dumu mes-ki-dg-ga-S e-er lugal unu^^-ga
id unug^' mu-un-du-a (var.: mu-un-da-dd-a) lugal~dm(iii
7-10)
^‘En-me(r)-kar, son of Mes-kiag-gasher, king of IJruk, the one who built Uruk (var.:
^the one under whom Uruk was built^, became kingl’
e) <^1 u g a 1 - b d n - d a s i p a (hi 12)
^The divine Lugal-banda, a shepherdl’
/) ‘^dumu-zi su-PES uru^'-ni kue-a^^ (hi 14-15)
^‘The divine Dumu-zi(d), a . . . . — ^his city (was) Ku^a(ra).”
g) <^g i 1 g a m e s (‘^gis-bil-ga-mes) ab-ba-ni ill-id en kul-ab-ba-ke 4
(hi 17-19)
'The divine Gilgames — ^his father (was) a KZM-demon — a high priest of Kullab.’^
h) tasX?)-^E simug (hi 31)
"MES(?)-gE, a smithl^
i) md-gal-gai-la"* [m d- lab] (iv 24)
"Magalgalla, a skipper.”
j) kd-*^ba-ba6 "“Md-kur un-na muio subn§ ki§i^^ mu-un-gi-na
lugai-dm (v 36-39)
"Ku(g)-Baba, a barmaid, the one who consolidated the foundation of Kish, be-
came ‘king.^ ”
k) na-an-ni-ia zadim (vil9)
"Nannia, a stonecutter.”
For details concerning text and translation see chap. zii.
Composition 143
1) sar-ru-ki-in . . - b a - ni n u -giriia qa-su-dus ur“'^za-ba 4 ~ba 4
lugal a-ga- ill a-ga-d^^‘ mu-un-du-a (var.: mu-un-da-
du-a) iugai-^m (vi 31-36)
''Sargon— his .... was a date-grower— cupbearer of Ur-Zababa(k), king of Agade,
the one who built Agade (var.: ^the one under whom Agade was built^, became
king."
A glance at these “notes^^ will show that they correspond closely with one
another in form. Two examples will be sufficient:
d)En-nie(r)-kar dumu Mes-kiag-gaser
lugalUnuk-a(k)luUnuk mu-n-du-a
1) S a r r u (m) - kin.. ..lugal Agade (-k) lu Agade mu-n-du-a
and
g?)Gilgames abb-ani lilla en Kulabb-ak-e
1) S a r r u (m.) - kin....b-ani nugiri(b) lugal Agade(-k)
The correspondence is so pronounced that we can consider it certain that the
^^notes^^ owe their form to the same hand. This hand, further, must have been
that of the author, for they have — with one exception — all been carefully
worked into the general framework of the list.^^
In content also the “notes^^ show close similarity. The information given
in them is of uniform character and can be classified without difficulty;
A. Information concerning origin of ruler
1. Parentage: Gilgames (^), Sargon (Z)
2. Native city: Dumu-zi(d) (/)
3. Profession: Etana (a), Lugal-banda (e), Dumu-zi(d) (/), Gilgames (g), Mes(?)-
HE (h), MagalgaUa (i), Ku(g)-Baba (j), Nannia (k), Sargon (1)
B. Information concerning achievements of ruler
1. Political and military: Etana (a), En-me(n)-barage-si (6), Ku(g)-Baba (j)
2. Founding of capital: En-me(r)-kar (d), Sargon (1)
3. Spectacular adventures: Etana (a), Mes-kiag-gasher (c).
The nature of this material is clear; it is historical information. Comparing
it with the different genres of Sumero-Akkadian literature to see where we
The ^^notes" are as a general rule worked into the formula for introducing new dy-
nasties, A^H-a) N. lugal-^m, as a relative sentence with lii inserted after N.
The exception mentioned is the ^^note" to Mes-kiag-gasher, which is added loosely after
the lines which deal with this ruler. On analogy from the other ^^notes" we should expect
to find
4-an-na-ka mes-ki-4g-ga-se-er dumu ‘^utu Id ab-ba ba-
an-tu bur-sag-§ls ba-eu en-^m iugai-^m mu 324 i - as .
In all probability, therefore, this '^note” is secondary, inserted by some early copyist of the
list. This insertion must have happened before the A branch and the B branch of the tradi-
tion separated, for the ^^note" appears in both (in WB and in P 2 ).
144
The Stjmeeiah King List
should seek its sources, we can therefore at once dismiss all genres which rarely
or never contain historical information, such as '^private letters,” ^^contracts,”
^^administrative documents,” and ‘^religious texts”; and as the historical in-
formation which our material gives is of a very special type we can limit the.
field even more. Royal inscriptions have at all times been written for the pur-
pose of glorifying the king, and they never contain facts which could detract
even slightly from his dignity. Nor do state papers, treaties with other rulers,
correspondence with officials, etc. ever refer to such facts. It is therefore clear
that the author of the King List cannot have got his information concerning
the lowly birth and original menial occupation of certain rulers from such
sources.^® Furthermore, the legendary character of many statements in his
^^notes,” for example that Etana ascended to heaven and that Gilgames was
son of a demon, is definitely against a derivation from royal inscriptions or
from the documents in official archives. Since practically every ^^note” con-
tains information of one of the two types just mentioned, we can with cer-
tainty conclude that the sources used for this part of the King List were
neither royal inscriptions nor state papers, even though these genres carry
historical material.
The objections which can be raised against a derivation from royal inscrip-
tions and from material in official archives hold good for another historical
genre also, namely date lists. From somewhat before the Agade period to the
end of the 1st dynasty of Babylon the years in Babylonia were each named
from some important event of political or religious nature. In such formulas,
however, and in the lists in which they were collected, one would seek as vainly
as in the royal inscriptions for information that a king had started his career
as a shepherd or that his father was a demon. In the periods earlier than the
Agade dynasty and during part of that dynasty as well, other systems of dating
were in use, and we shall presently see how far it is possible to deduce the exist-
ence and probable content of date lists based on them. These lists, however,
must likewise have been compiled for purely practical purposes, and informa-
tion of mythical or anecdotal nature is not likely to have occurred in them.
The eliminations which can thus be made in the “historical” genres of
Sumero-Akkadian literature leave only a single group of texts, the “epic-his-
torical” genre, as a possibility. Examining the material contained in texts of
this genre we do indeed find information of just the type for which we have
been looking. We may mention some examples. The information in the
“notes” concerning lowly birth and original menial occupation of some
This argument against derivation from royal inscriptions was first propounded by
Sidney Smith, EH A, p. 29.
Composition
145
rulers can be paralleled from among the legends by the so-called ^^Birth Legend
of Sargon/^^® which tells how this ruler was found by a date-grower and raised
to become a date-grower himself, and from the stories of the chronicles by
that of Enlil-bam of Isin, who likewise was a date-grower before he became
king.^^ The city from which Dumu-zi(d) hailed is mentioned in “note” /. Such
information is also given in the “Birth Legend,” which mentions Sargon’s na-
tive city, Azupiranu.^® The chronicles which we have abound in information
concerning such political and military achievements as those mentioned in
“notes” a, &, and /i. The Sar tamhari epic^® and the epic text dealing with
Gilgames’ war on Kish^^ also have such material. Lastly we may mention the
journey through the darkness and across the waters of death in the Gilgames
epic as a parallel to the spectacular adventures of “notes” a and c.
That the epic-historical genre contains the same kind of material as the
“notes”^ of the King List cannot be doubted. In many cases the correspond-
ence even goes beyond similarity in kind, and we find the actual material of
the “notes” themselves. Thus the information in the Etana epic that Etana
was carried up to heaven on the back of an eagle is obviously behind the state-
ment in the “note” to Etana: “the one who to heaven ascended”; and the
“note” to Sargon, “his .... was a date-grower,” is merely a brief reference
to the narrative in the “Birth Legend” of how Sargon was picked up from the
river by the date-grower Aqqi. It therefore seems obvious that we should look
for the source of the “notes” among such texts.
But is that possible? The genre in which we are interested is at present
only represented by fairly late specimens. The earliest copy of an epic yet
found dates from the Isin-Larsa period, and such is the case with the legends
also. The “Birth Legend” is even preserved in a copy as late as Assyrian times,
and from Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian times date all our versions of the
chronicles. The King List, on the other hand, must, if our earlier deductions
CT XIII (1901) Pi. 42; L. W. King, Chromdes concerning Early Bubyloniati Kings II
87-96.
King, op. pp. 12 and 117.
18 CT XIII, Pi. 42:3. Another Sargon legend, AO 7673 (H, de Genoiiillac, TRS II, No,
73), also mentioned Sargon^s city (obv. 10')*
18 See Weidner, Der Zug Sargons von Akkad nach Kleinasien (^Boghazkoi-Studien” Heft 6
[Leipzig, 1922]); Albright, 'The Epic of the King of Battle," JSOR VII (1923) 1-20. A
synopsis of the contents with valuable notes and further literature was given by Giiterbock
in ZA n.F. VIII (1934) 86-91.
20 PBS X 2, No. 5; SEM, No. 29; SRT, No. 38; Fish in John Rylands Library (Man-
chester), Bulletin XIX (1935) 362-72. The text was edited by Witzei in Orientalia n.s.
V (1936) 331-46.
146
The Sumeeian Kino List
are correct, have been composed as early as the time of TJtu-hegal. We would
therefore have to assume that our genre— although known in late copies only —
actually is of the same age as, or still older than, the King List.
In view of the extreme conservatism of Sumero- Akkadian literature such
an assumption is indeed very probable. It becomes practically certain when
we look at the material of the genre itself. As is commonly known, stories and
anecdotes about prominent historical persons originate while these persons
and their contributions to history are still fresh in memory and occupy people^s
thoughts. So it is with our material. People cannot suddenly have begun to
tell stories and anecdotes about Etana, Lugal-banda, Gilgames, Ku(g)-Baba,
and Sargon when these personages had long ago been forgotten by all but a
few learned scribes; these stories must first have been told when the leading
characters were still familiar to the listeners and held their interest.^^
The material of our genre must therefore be old; and when we consider that
narratives of mythological content were committed to writing as early as pre-
Sargonic times^^ and that a period of considerable literary activity and de-
veloped literary ability must have immediately preceded Utu-hegal, under
whom the King List was composed, because only such a period could have
produced the famous cylinders of Gudea, there is indeed no reason whatever
to doubt that written versions of epics and legends existed at the time of our
author. Nor can we exclude the possibility that some stories and anecdotes
had already then been collected and arranged chronologically, just as such
material is later found combined in the Chronicle Weidner;2^for the writing
of the King List itself is testimony to the fact that this period had an interest
in the collecting and systematizing of historical material. We must therefore
reckon with the existence of at least three varieties of the epic-historical genre
— “epics,^’ “legends,” and “chronicles” — when our author wrote, and we can
accordingly assume that he derived the material for his “notes” from them.
In exactly what form he found this material cannot be determined with
certainty. He may have been a man well read in such texts and have written
The author plans to publish an article on the Lugal-banda epic, with detailed discus-
sion of this point.
22E.g. the very important pre-Sargonic mythological text published by G. A. Barton,
Miscellaneotis Babylonian Inscriptions (New Haven, Conn., 1918) No. 1.
23 Published by Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 47 ff. I am indebted to Dr. Weidner, its
discoverer, for a transliteration and translation which enabled me to use this text before its
publication. The redaction which we possess must have been made in circles which had close
connection with E-sag-ila and Babylon, for all the anecdotes point a moral, namely how
dangerous it is to neglect that temple {ibid. pp. 15 f.). It is of course unlikely that the pre-
cursors of this text, with which we reckon above, served as vehicles for such a tendency.
Composition
147
his “notes” from memory; or he may have known only a single such source, an
early collection of anecdotes such as we have just described, and have got all
his information out of that. This question is, however, of only minor impor-
tance and may well be Mt open.
SOIJEGES OF THE MATEEIAL WHICH CONSTITUTES THE MAIN BODY OF THE LIST
Having thus found that the “notes” are most likely derived from texts of
the epic-historical genre, we may turn to the material which constitutes the
main body of the list, the names and lengths of reign of the various kings.
Looking as we did with the “notes” through the various gem'es of Sumero-
Akkadian literature, we find that we can this time discard from the very be-
ginning all but a single genre, the date lists, for in none of the others do we find
that most important feature, the lengths of the reigns.^^ This feature, further-
more, the editor of the King List must necessarily have got from his source,
for the figures are so obviously based on tradition that they could not possibly
have been invented.^® Before we can accept the obvious conclusion that the
author of the King List took his material from date lists we must, however,
pause for a moment to consider that the oldest date lists yet known do not go
back farther than to the time of the 3d dynasty of Ur, while the material con-
tained in the King List covers a span of time reaching far beyond the dynasty
of Agade into pre-Sargonic periods. Is it possible that date lists for these pe-
riods can have existed? If so, how should we then imagine their form and
content? Can they have met the requirements for a source for the King List?
These questions make it necessary to examine the Sumerian systems of dating
in older times.
The well known later dating system according to which each year was
named from some important event of a political or religious nature presup-
poses in itself the existence of lists in which the “year names” were arranged
24 Sidney Smith {EHA^ p. 29) suggested official records of omens kept in the temples as a
possible source, but the “historicaF^ omens which we possess never give information con-
cerning length of reign of the king in question or his relation to other kings. Many of the
^ historical' ^ data found in the omen literature can, moreover, be shown to be secondary and
to be derived from chronicles (see Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 16 f.). Such a source for the
King List is therefore not probable. Meyer {Die alter e Chronologie . . . . , p. 37) assumes
that historical inscriptions formed part of the sources for the King List — a view shared by
other scholars (e.g. Giiterbock, op, cit. pp. 6 f.) ; but these also could never give information
concerning the order of the rulers and the lengths of their reigns. See also p. 156, n, 46.
28 We are considering the figures as a whole. That certain types of figures, e.g. the exces-
sive reigns given to some of the early rulers, reigns which always come to round numbers,
are fictitious is obvious.
148
The Sumerian King List
chronologically, for by themselves the individual “names'" give little indica-
tion of where the 3 ^ears in question belong. Date lists based on this system
must thus have existed as long as the system itself. Since the name of the
ruler belongs to the full form of every “year name," and since in any case the
accession of a new ruler was always important enough to provide the “name"
of the corresponding year, lists based on this system contain all the material
necessary to find out order, names, and lengths of reign of the various rulers
in the period covered by them and can thus have supplied the author of the
King List with the necessary material. Unfortunately, however, this system
of dating cannot be traced very far back in time. It does not seem to have
come into general use until the time of the Agade dynasty, and the earliest
examples of “year names" are from the time of En-shakush-Anna(k),2® who
seems to have lived a generation or two before Sargon. It thus covers only a
small part of the period dealt with in the King List.
The system here mentioned, however, is not the only one known to the
Sumerians. Along with it in the period around the beginning of the Agade
dynasty runs a different system which does not use notable events as its base
but dates by reference to the various e n s i (k) "s or other similar high
dignitaries who followed each other in office. And this other system can be
shown to be of very great age indeed. As far back in time as in the texts
from Fara there appear — as Thureau-Dangin was the first to point out — dat-
ings by reference to the names of some high ofidcials, probably local rulers.
These datings take the form bala N., “reign of N.," and examples of
them have been collected by Thureau-Dangin^^ and by Deimel.^^
From approximately the same time as the Fara texts, if not earlier, come
Pohl, V orsargonische und Sargonische Wirtschafisiexie {TMH V [Leipzig, 1935]) No.
158, has a date of this type from the reign of En-shakush-Anna(k)- Cf. Thureau-Dangin in
RA XXXIII (1936) 62.
27>SAX, p. 224.
Die Inschriften von Fara I {WVDOG XL [Leipzig, 1922]) 3. Deimel’s objections to
considering the bala N. phrases as datings are of no value. That these phrases appear
only on contracts of sale is very natural, for there it was clearly more important to have a
date than on ordinary administrative documents which were meant to serve for only a short
time. A parallel observation can be made in the documents from the Isin-Larsa period,
where contracts are generally carefully dated while administrative documents are quite
often left undated. DeimeFs own explanation of b ala N., that it represents ^^die Quit-
tung, welche man doch auf einer derartigen Urkunde auch erwartet,^’ cannot be right.
The name which appears in the bala N. formula is different from that of any party to
the transaction, and the similarity between bala N. and X Y-ra/da dub-bi
e-da-bal gd-na e-ni-gar in the Uru-KA-gina texts upon which that explana-
tion is based is purely superficial The latter must mean “X turned its (the transaction’s)
tablet over to Y and put it on his account” and has nothing to do with bala N.
Composition 149
two dedication inscriptions of Me-silim, king of Kish, which we may quote
in Ml:.'
m e “ s i 1 i m l u g a 1 k i s i e - d u % i n - g I r - s u n i n - g i r - s ii i n u - 1 u m
lugal-§ag-engur eiisi lagasu^®
“Me-silim, king of Kish, builder of the temple of Ningirsu(k), brought this to Nin-
girsu(k). Lugal-shag-engur (was) ensi (k) of Lagash/’
me-silim lugal kisi 4-§ar ga-mu-gh 6 "^‘'ensi adaba^°
^^(I) Me-silim, king of Kish, verily restored E-shar. E (was) e n s i (k) of Adah.”
Here too we find dating by reference to the reign of a local official, for the brief
mentions of the men who then held office as e n s i (k) in Lagash and
Adab, unconnected with everything else in the inscriptions, could hardly have
another purpose. Exactly similar to these datings in the Me-silim inscriptions,
but later and a little more explicit, are datings found in inscriptions of En-
temena and Lugal-anda:
U 4 -ba en-te-me-na ensi lagasu^'-kam en-e-tar-zi sangu
^nin-gir-su-ka-ka
‘'At that time En-temena was ensi (k) of Lagash and En-e(n)tar-zi(d) was
s a n g u -priest of Ningirsu(k).’^
U4-ba du-du sangu n i n - g 1 r - s u - k a - k a
“At that time Dudu was sangu-priest of Ningirsu(k)/^
U 4 -ba ur-e-Mus-ke4 di-bi i-kus lugal-an-da ensi-kam^®
“At that time did Ur-E-Mus(k) judge their case, and Lugal-anda was e n s i (k) J*
From these examples it is evident that in pre-Sargonic times, from Me-silim
and the Fara texts to Lugal-anda, documents could be dated simply by ref-
erence to the e n s i (k) or to some other high dignitary who at that time
held office.®^ There are, however, traces of a more developed system also,
SAK, p. 160.
30 D. D. Luckenbili, Inscriptions fro7n Adah {01 P XIV [1930]) No. 5. Our translation of
ga-mu-gii reckons with influence from Akkadian, where the corresponding lu uitr can
be either a precative or an emphatic form. Cf. however Poebel, GSG §§ 640 and 640a.
31 RTC, No. 16; cf. SAK, p. 224.
^“^Dec., p. xivii, No. 5:21-22 (cf. SAKj p. 34 A), and p. xlviii, No. 7 viii 8-9 (cf. SAK^
p. 36 h),
33 RTC, No. 28; cf. SAK, p. 224, No. 2 5.
34 This rough dating method persisted until after the Agade period. Cf. e.g. H. F. Lutz,
Sumerian Temple Records of the Late Ur Dynasty (“University of California Publications
in Semitic Philology’’ IX 2 [Berkeley, Calif., 1928]) pp. 204-5, No. 83 (a text of the Agade
period) iii 39-46: m - b a um-mi-mi a - § u - d Ug v-nu-mi IniTS^Nyhu-iq-^b^-ni-is isak-ki
is-nun^\ “At that time Ummimi was cupbearer, in the days of Inpiq-Hanish, ishakku of
Eshnunna(k)” (the name Inpiq-Hanish seems to mean “he heeded Hani,” inplq being Ii of
150
The Shmeeian King List
namely dating by the years of the e n s i (k) ^s. The evidence for this more
developed form of the system is furnished chiefly by the archives of En-
temena and his successors in Lagash, in which a number of tablets have at
the end a figure of special type which indicates the year in the e n s i (k) 's
reign from which the tablet in question dates.^® Still more exact are datings
on other pre-Sargonic tablets which at the end refer to a year and a month,
for example 4 m u i t u 4, ‘'fourth year, fourth month/' or to year, month,
and day: 5 mu 10-lal-1 itu 23 U4 These dates also must have ref-
erence to the reign of the e n s i (k) or to a similar fixed period.
We see thus that one could date on this system rather roughly by referring
merely to the name of the man who was then e n s i (k) but also, at least
in later times, quite accurately by quoting the year or even year, month, and
day of a given reign. Now it is obvious that even the rougher of these datings,
that by the name of the e n s i (k) only, presupposes lists in which one
could look up the time when a given e n s i (k) held office. Otherwise a dat-
rmppiiqu; on the value In of en see Gelb in AJSL LIII [1936/37] 41); Clay, YOS I, No.
13: 1~2: U 4 -ba i^-ar-la-ga-anlugal gu-ti-um-kam, that time lar-
lagan was king of Gutium”; Scheil in CRj 1911, p. 319, 11. 14-15: U 4 -b a si-n-um
lugai gu-ti-um-kam, ^At that time Simm was king of Gutium’’; Hilprecht Aw-
nivermry Volume (Leipzig, 1909) p. 152: i-nu-mi za-ri-kihum isak, ‘^When Zarikum was
ishakkuJ^
25 On this method of dating see Allotte de la Fu^e in RA VI (1904-7) 106 f., who was
the first to realize the true nature of the marks in question. His explanation has been ac-
cepted by practically all scholars. Landsberger’s objection {OLZ XXXIV [1931] 118, n. 1)
that the figures we find are so low that it seems unlikely that they are dates does not carry
much weight, for from S3mchromsms contained in the tablets themselves we know that the
reigns of the rulers concerned muai have been very short (note, e.g., that En-e(n)tar-zi(d)
occurs as priest already under En-temena [8AK, p. 224, No. 2 a] and that Uru-XA-gina ap-
pears as an official under Lugal-anda [Smith, EHAj p. 39]. Note also that a Dudu, presu-
mably the same man, appears as s a n g u under En-temena, Bar-namtarra [wife of
Lugal-anda], and Uru-KA-gina [see Christian in AOF VIII (1932/33) 207; cf. C. F. Jean,
La religion sumerienne (Paris, 1931) p. 201]). It should also be mentioned that for En-
temena, who is likely to have had a long reign, we have a date as high as the nineteenth year.
Compare, finally, DeimeFs statement in his Sumerische Tempelwirtschaft zur Zeii Uruka-
ginas und seiner Vorgdnger {An, Or. II [1931]) p. 72: *‘Das sorgfaltige Studium des gesamten
Tempelpersonals, wie es uns in den nach obiger Regel chronologisch nach Jahr und Monat
geordneten Listen in seinem Bestande xmd in seiner zeitlichen Entwicklung voiiiegt, hat es
mir bis zur Evidenz erwiesen, dass die von A. de la Fuije[!] zuerst aufgestellte Erklarung der
am Schlusse der Tafel angebrachten senkrechten Keilchen, die auf ein wagerechtes aufgereiht
warden, unumstosslich sicher ist.^^
2 ® Dates of this type were first noted by Thureau-Dangin in BA VIII (1911) 154. The
tablets concerned seem to come from TJmma. Other tablets with such dates were published
by T, Fish, Catalogue of Sumerian Tablets in the John Rylands Library (Manchester, 1932)
p. xi, Nos. 2-17. It is not always easy to decide whether the tablets in question belong to
the first half of the Agade period or to the time immediately before that period.
Composition
151
ing by his name would of course be altogether without value. There must
therefore have been lists which gave the names of the e n s i (k) 's in chrono-
logical order and the span of time each of them had reigned. These lists,
furthermore, must have been different for each city, for the local character of
the system is apparent in the datings which we have. The names of the officials
in the Fara dates plainly show that we are dealing with people from Shurup-
pak itself .®^ The Me-silim inscription from Lagash is dated by reference to the
e n s i (k) of Lagash; that from Adab is dated by reference to the e n s i (k)
of Adab. Finally, the Lagash tablets from the archives of En-temena and his
successors are all dated from the reigns of e n s i (k) ’s of Lagash itself, ir-
respective of what overlords Lagash acknowledged at the time.
We can thus answer our original question and answer it in the afl&rmative:
It is probable that date lists existed in pre-Sargonic times even as far back
as Me-silim and the Fara texts. These lists must have been local lists, differ-
ent for each city, and they must have enumerated the local e n s i (k) ^s—
in some cases perhaps other officials also— with the number of years each
ensi (k) reigned. In other words, they contained exactly what is required
in the sources of the I^ing List.
We have thus, as with the “notes^’ of the King List, been able to isolate
a single literary genre as the only one which contains the right kind of ma-
terial and have seen that suitable texts of this genre must have existed and
can have been accessible to the author of the King List when he wrote his
work. With the “notes” we could get no further and had to leave the argu-
ment at that. Here, however, where our material is more extensive, it is pos-
sible to approach the problem from a different angle and thus obtain a check
on the result.
If, as our evidence has thus far seemed to suggest, the King List is a com-
pilation from a number of separate local date lists, the chances are that traces
of such original entities would stiff remain within the present whole. If we
are mistaken, however, and the source is not a collection of separate lists, such
traces should not appear. But they do. Looking through the list with this
problem in mind, we are struck first by the fact that the 1st dynasty of Uruk,
which now appears well within the list, begins with a ruler who is said to be
son of the sun-god Utu. This beginning is of absolute character. The Uruk
kings traced their lineage back to the sun-god, and originally there cannot
have been anything beyond that. We must therefore conclude that this tradi-
tion was originally separate and that its present place in the list after the 1st
37 E.g. m a s - ^ d and *^8 ti d - ka - z i - d a , composed with the name of the city
god of Shuruppak, % u d .
152
The SxjMEBiAN ' Kino List
dynasty of Kish is secondary and is due to the fact that the editor has corn-
piled originally separate traditions.
A similar observation can be made in the 1st dynasty of Kish. Here Etana
occurs in the middle of the dynasty. From the Etana epic, however, we know
a tradition according to which Etana was not only the first king of Kish but
the first king of alL^® Now we find in the King List clear traces that two sepa-
rate units have been joined at just this point. Thus it should be noted that
the kings preceding Etana all have Akkadian names and are further unified
by the fact that many of their names are those of animals, while Etana begins
a series of rulers with names of different type. Further, Etana is introduced
by the formula Etana....lugal-^m , the formula characteristic
of the first king in a d^masty. It is therefore clear that the author knew that
Etana introduced something new; the ‘ ^animal-kings^ ^ and the ^^Etana-kings^^
form two separate units. It is obvious that the author of the Etana epic can
have known only the second of these, the one beginning with Etana, for ac-
cording to him there were no kings before that ruler. The second unit must
therefore have existed as a separate entity, and we may accordingly conclude
that the other unit, the ^^animal-kings, was added by the author of the
King List in front of an originally independent tradition which began with
Etana.
We have thus found evidence of at least two originally independent tradi-
tions which have been embodied in the text of the King List. The most con-
vincing proof , however, that the list represents a conglomerate of several sepa-
rate traditions is furnished by the figures given for the reigns. It has often
been pointed out that the reigns of the kings form a valuable criterion by
which to judge the degree of historicity to be ascribed to various sections of
the King List.®® Where the lengths of the reigns do npt exceed what is humanly
possible we may assume that the author still had reliable historical tradition
to go by; where the kings have legendary reigns of several hundred years each,
however, we must be beyond those periods of which the Sumerians preserved
precise historical memories. Since the King List reaches back from historical
to legendary periods and since the criterion just mentioned gives us a means
See especially the Old Babylonian version (A. T. Clay, Babylonian Records in the Li-
brary of J, Pierpont Morgan IV [New Haven, Conn., 1923] PL 2 i 1-14), which clearly
states at the beginning of the epic that the gods had not yet appointed a king (I. 6 : mr-ra-am
la is-kvrnu ka-lu ni-U e-U-a-tim, king they had not appointed for all the .... people)
and that the insignia of kingship still rested in heaven before An (11. 11-12: l].a-at-tii-um
me-a-nv^um ku-nb-him u U-hi-ir-ru ku-ud-mi-is Or-ni-im ina sa-ma-i sa-ak-nu),
Cf, e.g. Smith, EHAj pp. 35 f., and, still clearer, Ravn in an article in the Copenhagen
newspaper K^benham, Dec. 31, 1924.
Composition
153
to distinguish between historical and legendary reigns, we should, if the ESng
List actually did constitute a single homogeneous tradition, be able to ascer-
tain fairly exactly at what point or zone the transition from historical to legend-
ary takes place.'^^ Looking through the list, however, we find that such a point
or zone does not seem to exist at all. Historical and legendary dynasties are
mixed. A dynasty will begin with legendary reigns, grow historical, and be
followed by another historical dynasty. After that, however, will come a third
dynasty which is again purely legendary. Such obvious inconsistency can mean
only one thing: the King List is not a single tradition but has been compiled
from several independent ones. And if we dissolve the present list, singling
out the material in the way which seems most natural, namely according to
locality, we shall indeed see that all inconsistencies disappear. Instead of one
blurred picture we get several perfectly sharp ones:
Kish
1st dynasty 23 kings legendary reigns
2d dynasty 8 kings legendary reigns
3d dynasty 1 king legendary reign
Transition from legendary to historical
4th dynasty 7 kings historical reigns
Ueuk
1st dynasty first 5 kings legendary reigns
Transition from legendary to historical
1st dynasty last 7 kings historical reigns
2d dynasty l+x kings probably historical reigns
3d dynasty 1 king historical reign
4th dynasty 5 kings historical reigns
’ . ■ . -Uk
Transition from legendary to historical
1st dynasty 4 kings historical reigns
2d dynasty 4 kings historical reigns
As will be noted, each of these traditions shows a clear and definite point at
which the transition from legendary to historical reigns takes place, just as we
must expect from homogeneous traditions. The inconsistencies of the King
List taken as a whole thus become clear. The author has interpolated these
original and homogeneous traditions one into another; and, since the Kish
tradition becomes historical very late, the combined list shows that inconsist-
It should perhaps be expressly stated that the division historical-legendary applies to
the reigns only. A name can obviously be historical, even if later on a ^ ^legendary” reign
has been associated with it. See also p. 166.
154
The Sumerian King List
ent and uneven distribution of historical and mythical dynasties on which
we have commented.
We have thus found perfect agreement between our two lines of inquiry.
That the King List is based on independent local lists of rulers—the conclusion
which we reached by comparing its material with that of other genres and by
a consideration of what is known of the oldest Sumerian methods of dating—
is wholly confirmed by the examination of this work itself, which shows traces
of the beginnings of at least two separate traditions within the present list
and which exhibits inconsistencies in the distribution of legendary and histori-
cal reigns which are explicable only if it is a compilation of separate local
traditions.
Our conclusion is therefore imperative: The author of the King List used
as sources a collection of local date lists from a number of Babylonian cities.
Individual Sources
We have seen above (pp. 142-47) that the general character of the sources for
the ^'notes'’ of the King List could be determined. Their material derives from
documents of the epic-historical genre. Within this group, however, derivation
from one or more chronicles, from individual epics, or from legends seemed
equally possible; and it is accordingly clear that efforts to reconstruct the in-
dividual documents from which the ' ^notes’ ^ were taken could have no chance
of success. We must therefore turn to the other part of our material, that
which constitutes the main body of the list.
In discussing the illogical distribution of historical and legendary reigns in
the King List we have already shown in what way the original sources now
united in the King List can be singled out. Rearranging the dynasties accord-
ing to location, that is, the Kish dynasties together, the Uruk dynasties to-
gether, etc., we found that the inconsistencies exhibited by the list as a whole
disappeared and we got groups which conform to what should be expected
from homogeneous traditions. That this feature, the location of the djmasties,
must indeed be a reliable guide could also have been concluded from our gen-
eral knowledge of the character of the sources. As we have seen, the sources
must have been pre-Sargonic date lists, and these were local lists, each dealing
with the rulers of a single city only.
By rearranging the dynasties along these lines we obtain a number of groups
each of which contains all the material on a given city which is found in the
King List. In these groups we may— if no other evidence points to still finer
divisions — see the original sources used by the author. One reservation should,
however, be made. The groups which we have singled out can naturally repre-
Composition
155
sent the corresponding sources only to the extent to which the material of the
sources was actually embodied in the King List. Until we know the extent to
which the author used his sources we must reckon with the possibility that our
groups are incomplete and that there are lacunas of unknown length between
their dynasties. '
The groups singled out are of two kinds^ larger groups made up of several
djuiasties and smaller groups which have only one dynasty. We may consider
the larger ones first. In this category there are three: (a) the Kish group, con-
sisting of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th d 3 niasties of Kish, (6) the Uruk group, con-
sisting of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th dynasties of Uruk, and (c) the Ur group,
which has only two dynasties, the 1st and 2d dynasties of Ur. Only one of these
calls for special comment, namely the Kish group. Here, as we have already
mentioned (p. 152), the 1st dynasty does not seem to be of a piece; it looks as
though a series of Akkadian rulers many of whom have animal names has
been added in front of an originally separate tradition which began with Etana.
Since we cannot assume that the same city had two wddely different dynastic
traditions, we must consider only one of the two the genuine Kish tradition.
The choice between them is not dfficult. The close connection of the Etana
tradition with Kish is evident not only from the separate testimony of the
Etana epic, where Etana occurs as king of Kish, but also from the fact that
one of the kings of his dynasty has a name composed with that of the city
itself, Melam-Kishi(k).
If, however, the Etana tradition is the genuine Kish tradition, we must ask
how the author could come to assign the other list to Kish and to make it
precede the genuine tradition. A possible explanation suggests itself w^hen we
consider the importance which attached to the title /^king of Kish” in ancient
Sumer. That title was so highly prized that a ruler of another city would
proudly adopt it if he was mighty enough to have the actual ruler of Kish
acknowledge him as overlord. Thus for example Mes-Anne-pada called him-
self “king of Kish” although his capital was Ur in the South.^^ Another ruler
from the South, E-Anna(k)-tum of Lagash, also took that title and the same
is the case with rulers of Agade such as Sargon, Rhnush, and Man-ishtushu.^®
The connection of the title with Edsh itself, therefore, need not always be
very close, and it is possible to imagine that the author of the King List can
^ See U 13607, published by Burrows in U£/ II 312 f.
*^2 This can be concluded from the passage p. 22 v 20-vi 5: e“an-na-tilm
....-ra <iinanna-ke 4 ....nam-ensi-lagasu^'-ta nam-lugai-kisi^^
mu-na-ta-si, “to Eannadu Inanna gave the kingship of Kis from (t.e., growing out
from) the Eakkuship of Lagas’^ (PoebeFs translation; see PBB IV 1, p. 129).
See the inscriptions of these rulers listed in EISA, pp. 100-136.
156
The Stjmbkian. King List
have had a source subscribed, for example, x 1 u gal k i s i , ''x kings of
Kish,”^^ although these rulers actually belonged to a dynasty of another city
and were merely acknowledged as suzerains of Kish. For such a source there
would be only one suitable place, namely before Etana; for we can be fairly
certain that the Etana tradition, the genuine Kish tradition, carried unbroken
down to periods in which the author of the King List was at home and where
he could find no room for such a dynasty. The connection of the kings before
Etana with Kish is thus open to doubt, and it seems better to leave them aside
and to count as genuine Kish tradition only the kings following that ruler,
that is to say, the last half of the 1st dynasty and all of the following dynasties.
To the second category, the smaller groups, belong (a) the dynasty of Ak-
shak, (b) the dynasty of Maeri, (e) the dynasty of Agade, (d) the dynasty of
Awan, (e) the dynasty of Hamazi, and (f) the dynasty of Adab. The first two
of these contain six rulers each, the third contains eleven rulers, and the fourth
three rulers. For each of them we can therefore assume a separate list from
the city in question as the source which the author of the King List used. The
last two, however, the Hamazi group and the Adab group, contain no more
than one ruler each. Since we cannot assume that the author had “lists” which
contained only one ruler, we must suppose that he got his information con-
cerning these two rulers from other channels. It seems possible, for example,
that they appeared as foreign conquerors in one of the other sources.
Summing up,^^ we may thus present the following conspectus of sources:
I. A collection of date lists from various cities. Source of the material in the body of
the King List. This collection comprised some eight texts :
A. Larger traditions:
1. List from Kish containing 1st dynasty of Kish from Etana down, 2d, 3d,
and 4th dynasties of Kish
Such subscriptions telling what the lists dealt with must be presupposed in the in-
dividual lists. As a parallel compare the later Elamite lists of rulers published by Seheil
in RA XXVIII (1931) 2, which are subscribed 1^ sarrtP^ sd and W mrrvP^
si-mas-siHl,
46 Even more likely is it that these dynasties originally were more extensive than now,
i.e., that each of them counted a reasonable number of kings in the original of the King List.
They would then be in line with the normal lists of rulers. Evidence to support this assump-
tion is discussed on pp. 99 and 102, nn. 174 and 186.
The analysis presented here had reached its present form when Giiterboek’s study of
the problem in ZA n.F. VIII 4-6 appeared. It seemed impractical to work discussions of the
points on which we differ from his results into our main argument, so we have preferred to
discuss his solution separately and as a whole.
Guterbock assumes two main sources for the King List, a local tradition from Kish and
a local tradition from Uruk, each of which would consist of mythological, legendary, and
perhaps also historical elements. He differentiates between mythological and legendary as
Composition
157
2. List from Uriik containing 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4tli dynasties of Uruk
3. List from Ur containing 1st and 2d dynasties of Ur
4. List of unknown provenience containing the kings vrlio now appear before
Etana in the 1st dynasty of Kish
follows: “Das Wort Sage verwenden wir dabei in der herkommliehen Bedeutiing; die Grenze
gegen den Mythus ist dadurch gegeben, dass im Mythus weder der Schauplatz nocli die han-
delnden Personen der irdischen Realitat angehoren, wahrend die Sage von realen, in die ge-
schichtliche Sphare gehorenden Personen und Ereignissen ausgeht.” He counts as mytho-
logical the 1st dynasty of Kish down to Etana and the 1st dynasty of Uruk down to Gil-
games, which we consider legendaiy, and as legendary the last part of the 1st d 3 masty at
Kish and at Uruk, Kish II-IV, and Uruk II, which we consider as mainly historical. The
material for this last part of the two traditions he assumes to have come from lists of names
kept in the two cities in question. These two local traditions supplied the names, reigns,
and the material in the “notes’^ for the kings of Kish and Uruk which we find in the list.
The remaining information, that which concerns the dynasties of Ur, Akshak, Maeri, Awan,
etc., was, according to Giiterbock, derived not from local traditions but from royal inscrip-
tions from the Enlil temple in Nippur: “Wir diirfen annehmen, dass die Gelehrten von Nip-
pur hier allerlei Nachrichten vereinigt haben, die sie wenigstens zum Teii den Bau- und
Weihinschriften im Enliltempel entnahmen.'’
As will be seen, Giiterbock has on two points reached conclusions similar to ours. He as-
sumes local traditions as sources, even though he does so in only two cases, Kish and Uruk,
and even though liis picture of these sources differs from ours. He also considers the pos-
sible existence of “Namenlisten .... die in den beiden Stadten gefiihrt wm’den,^' which is
not so far away from our conclusion that the sources were date lists giving names and reigns
of local rulers.
In general, however, we cannot follow his analysis. We must uphold our main division
into epic-historical sources for the “notes” and individual date lists for the names and reigns.
Giiterbock assumes that his two main traditions, those of Kish and of Uruk, combined both
kinds of material; but the material which is now found in the “notes” has been chosen ac-
cording to such definite plan (unusual parentage, native city, profession, etc.) and has been
put in shape and worked into the framework so uniformly that it must have been added en
bloc by a single hand, that of the author. If it had constituted original elements of different
sources this regularity would be unthinkable.
Nor can we accept Giiterbock^s suggestion that the first part of the 1st dynasty of Kish
and of the 1st dynasty of Uruk should derive from mythological tales. Mythological tales
are generally concerned with a single hero only. It is assuming a great deal to presuppose a
tale for every one of the five Uruk kings and thirteen Kish kings whom Giiterbock’s analysis
assigns to mythological sources. A still greater difficulty is the fact that while mythological
tales can have supplied the names of the list they would contain no information concerning
the mutual order of the rulers, which is an important feature of the list. Our own assumption
that these sections derive from lists of rulers just like the later parts of the dynasties in ques-
tion seems therefore definitely preferable.
Lastly, we must reject the suggestion that royal inscriptions from Nippur formed the
source for that part of the King List which was not covered by the two local traditions from
Kish and Uruk. Royal inscriptions of this period rarely give information concerning the
mutual order of two rulers — the Lagash inscriptions form an exception in tliis respect — and
they never give any information concerning length of reign. Since figures for reigns could
only have been found in date lists, which would also give the names of the kings in order,
the author of the list could have gained little from royal inscriptions. We must therefore
assume that these sections also are based on date lists.
158
The Sumerian King List
B. Smaller traditions:
1. List from Agade with dynasty of Agade
2. List from Maeri with dynasty of Maeri
3. List from AJkshak with d 3 naasty of Akshak
4. List from Awan with djmasty of Awan
II, One or more texts of epic-historical type. Source of the material in the “notes’^
METHODS
Having thus formed a general idea of the sources which the author of the
King List had at his disposal, we may next consider in what way he has treated
this material to produce his final work.
The dynasties of the King List are presented consecutively. At the end of
each dynasty appears the sentence, ^The city A was smitten with weapons;
its kingship was carried to the city and the new dynasty is then intro-
duced: “In the city B N. became king,’’ It is thus clear that the author oper-
ates with the idea of a single “kingship” owned at different times by different
cities and that his work is intended as a record of the vagaries of this “king-
ship” in which it is possible to see where it was at any given time. Since our
author wrote his work from date lists, separate lists which enumerated the
rulers of a given city as completely as possible and as far back as possible, it
seems unavoidable that large sections in each of his sources would have been
irrelevant because they dealt with rulers reigning at periods when their city
was not in possession of the “kingship.” To record the vagaries of the “king-
ship” as the author intended, he would therefore have had to arrange his local
lists side by side in a sort of synchronistic table and then compile his own list
by working down from the top, deciding for each successive period which city
at that time held the kingship and including only the rulers from there.
When we test this assumption with the means at our disposal we find, how-
ever, that it disagrees with all other facts and would lead to untenable results.
An example will illustrate this. From Mes-Anne-pada of the 1st dynasty of
Ur down to Sargon of Agade the King List enumerates some forty-five rulers.
If the author had worked in the manner described, these forty-five rulers must
have followed one another in time. Now we know from archeological and epi-
graphical evidence that Mes-Anne-pada was roughly contemporaneous with
Ur-Nanshe(k) of Lagash, and we know also how many rulers Lagash had from
A supposition that the King List was composed in some such fashion has been gen-
erally held; it underlies such statements as 'Alle diese, durch Originalinschriften ais Ober-
herren erwiesenen Piirsten aber sind in den Konigslisten iibergangen, vielieicht, weil sie
Sumerer, Feinde der Semiten, waren, vielleicht auch, weil sie teilweise den religiosen Fated-
Titel dem weltlicheren Lugal-litel vorzogen*' (Unger in OLZ XXXVII [1934] 364) and
^^vermutlich sind diese Herrscher von der tJberlieferung nicht ais wirklich berechtigte VoU-
konige anerkannt worden’' (Meyer, Die dltere Chrdnologie . . . . , p. 37).
Composition
159
Ur-Nanshe(k) down to the time of Sargon; they number eleven. It is clearly
impossible to imagine that forty-five rulers, many of whom were father and
son, followed one another on the throne of Babylonia in the same period which
in Lagash was covered by only eleven. The author of the King List therefore
cannot have dealt with his material in the way he would have us believe.^® To
see what actually happened we must look for passages in his work which will
throw light on his methods and where possible retrace his steps.^®
A good example is the treatment of the dynasties Kish III (Ku(g)-Baba),
Akshak, and Kish IV. To make clearer what the author actually did we may
first see what he should have done. The sources for the section must have
been pre-Sargonic date lists, and as two cities are involved we can assume
that the author had two such lists, an Akshak source from which he took the
dynasty of Akshak and a Kish source for the two Kish dynasties. If he had
worked by the selective method described above, these sources should have
Kisb Source
Ku(g)-Baba
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N. '
Puzur-Sin
IJr-Zababa(k)
Simu-dar
Bsi-watar
Eshtar-muti
Ishme-Shamash
Nannia
For Period A the author would have decided on Kish as seat of the kingship
and would have entered Ku(g)-Baba in his list, disregarding the corresponding
ruler of Akshak. In the next period, B, he would decide that Akshak was capi-
tal and enter the rulers from there, rejecting the corresponding rulers in the
Kish source. Lastly, in the third period, C, he would come to the conclusion
The example here quoted is due to Weidiier, who already in 1923, in Archiv fur Keil-
schriftforschung I 95, had pointed out that many of the dynasties which appear as successive
in the King List were in reality contemporaneous. He uses the example as proof of this
thesis in AOF III (1926) 198. Weidner’s thesis is now accepted by all scholars.
The examples mentioned in the following pages are for the major part well known. They
were pointed out by Weidner in the articles quoted above and have been discussed by other
scholars also.
looked as follows :
Period B
Akshak Source
Period AN.
Unzi
Undalulu
Ur-ur
Puzur-Nirah
Ishtl-il
Shu-Stn
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
Period C
160
The Sumerian King List
that the kingship had returned to Kish once more and would again use the
Kish source in preference to the Akshak source.
In reality, however, something quite different must have happened. The
first ruler of Kish IV, Puzur-Sin, is stated to be the son of Ku(g)-Baba, who
represents Kish III. These two d 3 niasties must therefore have followed directly
upon each other in the Kish source, and there accordingly cannot have been a
series of rulers between them to correspond to the Akshak dynasty. The au-
thor has not rejected any material. Instead of preferring for a certain period
the rulers of the Akshak source to contemporaneous rulers in the Kish source,
he has forced a continuous list from Kish apart and inserted a list of rulers from
Akshak. In other words, he is not working on a selective method; on the con-
trary, he uses all the material he has and interpolates one source into the other.
Graphically we may express his procedure as follows:
Akshak Source
Unzi
Undalulu
Ur-ur
Puzur-Nirah
IsMAl
Shti-Sb
Another passage where we can observe the working method of the author is
the section from Ur-Zababa(k) of the 4th d 3 masty of Kish to Sargon of Agade,
and here again we get similar results. The author has placed the 4th dynasty
of Kish in front of the 3d dynasty of Uruk, Lugal-zage-si, and this in turn in
front of Sargon of Agade. In a 'bote^^ to Sargon he states, however, that this
king was originally cupbearer of Ur-Zababa(k), who is the second ruler of the
4th dynasty of Kish. It is therefore clear that Sargon must have reigned fairly
close to this ruler in time; and, since we know that Sargon gained his suprem-
acy over Babylonia by defeating Lugal-zage-si, we must assume that Lugal-
zage-si gained his by defeating Ur-Zababa(k). The actual succession should
therefore be
Ur-Zababa(k)
Lugal-zage-si
Sargon
and the author should have listed Lugal-zage-si just after Ur-Zababa(k). In-
stead we find that these two are separated in the King List by as many as five
Kish Source
^u(g)-Baba
Puzur-Sin
Ur-Zababa(k)
Simu-d^r
^^i-watar
Eshtar-muti
Ishme-Shamash
Nannia
Composition
161
rulers of Kish, namely Simu-dar, 0?i-watar, Eshtar-muti, Ishme-Shamash,
and Nannia, who cover a period of 66 years.
These five rulers come of course from the Kish source which the author is
using. Being a date list from that city, it must naturally have listed all rulers
of Kish, including those who reigned after the hegemony of Babylonia had
passed to Uruk and to Agade. These later rulers in the source, who were con-
temporaneous with Lugal-zage-si and Sargon and who had to acknowledge
them as suzerains, should accordingly have been rejected by the author of the
King List as only petty kings. Instead he has pulled XJr-Zababa(k) and Lugal-
zage-si apart to make room for them. We see once more that our author does
not reject any of his material but uses it all, even if he has to force apart rulers
who belong together in order to get it in.
The examples which we have here mentioned are by no means isolated in-
stances but could easily be supplemented with others which tell the same tale.
They allow us to draw our first conclusion concerning the working methods of
the author: He used his material to the full, was indeed so far from rejecting
anything that he would even separate kings who belong together to get every-
thing in.
This conclusion is of considerable interest. It means first of all that many
of the dynasties listed as consecutive in the King List were in reality contempo-
raneous, and it explains effortlessly how the King List can give forty-five rulers
for a period which was covered in Lagash by only eleven. Secondly, and just
as important, it means that the groups representing the various sources which
we have singled out earlier must give us fairly complete pictures of the docu-
ments for which they stand; for, if the author was using his material to the full,
we must possess that material unabridged in his work.
Among the groups which we singled out there were three larger ones, the
Kish, Uruk, and Ur groups, made up from material found in various places in
the King List. If these groups, as is likely, contain the full amount of material
given in the corresponding sources, the author can have done no more to the
sources than cut them up and distribute them over his work. And it is obvi-
ously of interest to know how he did this cutting and what reasons can have
prompted him to do such cutting at all. An example of how the editor cut has
already been mentioned — the cut which separated Ku(g)“Baba from her son
Puzur-Sln. This example is, however, exceptional, for nowhere else do we find
an indication that the author has severed palpably organic connections be-
tween two rulers, and since a ruler is often stated to be the son of his predeces-
sor there would be sufficient opportunity. It seems likely that the author gen-
erally placed his cuts more carefully, and there are indications of an original
162
The Sxjmeeian King List
division of the rulers into dynasties which seems to go back to the sources
themselves and which probably influenced him.
The system of division which now dominates the King List is based on the
various movings of the “kingship'' from one city to another : 'The city A was
smitten with weapons; its kingship was carried to the city B." Since each of
the author's sources dealt with a single city, it is clear that these divisions
must represent the places where he has Joined pieces of two sources. Along
with these divisions we find, however, another system in which the beginning
of each nevr sequence is indicated by explicit use of the words lugal-
am, “was king” or “became king,” which were of course implied after
every name in the list. Comparing the occurrences of the two systems, we
see that the divisions made by the moving of the “kingship,” divisions which
represent the places where the author joined two of his units, seem dependent
on the 1 u g a 1 - ^ m divisions, for they always follow them closely, whereas
the latter are self-sufficient and can appear alone. In the beginning of the list
both Etana and En-me(n)-barage-si are marked in this fashion as first rulers
of dynasties although the “kingship” remains stable in Kish all the time.
Since the system which results from the author's cutting and rejoining the
sources, the “kingship” system, thus follows in the steps of the division into
dynasties expressed by the lugal-Am formula, the latter must be pri-
mary and can be assigned to the original sources. Our author has found such
divisions into dynasties there and has made his cuts according to them.
We have thus seen that the author of the King List has cut up the larger of
his sources into smaller units and that in general he seems to have made his cuts
according to an existing division into dynasties, so that the units he obtained
were natural units, the old dynasties of the sources. It is natural to ask what
purpose he can have had for treating his sources in this fashion.
As we have often had occasion to mention, the author of the King List oper-
ated on the theory of a single kingship of all Babylonia which could belong to
only one city at a time. That this theory disagrees with actual facts — at least
for the older periods of Babylonian history — need not be demonstrated. We
know that different “kingships” existed side by side in Babylonia as late as
the Agade period, probably even later. Since the author was thus working on
a wrong theory, it seems inevitable that he must have run up against difficul-
ties when he began to apply it to his material. The bulk of this material con-
sisted of separate lists, each dealing with rulers of a different city. To make it
agree with the theory of the single “kingship” it would be necessary to arrange
these lists successively so that the “kingship” appeared to pass from the city
of one source to the city of the next. Such an arrangement could, however, be
CoMPosmoH
163
made in good faith only if the author knew of no synchronisms between his
rulers. The lists which formed his sources must in reality have covered largely
the same periods; so if he arranged them successively, rulers of different cities
whom the synchronisms showed to be contemporaneous would of course ap-
pear far apart in his final list and thus expose the fallacy of the arrangement
to him.
Now it can hardly be doubted that our author did know such s3m.chronisms.
One of the “notes” which he inserted in his work states that Sargon began his
career as cupbearer to King Ur-Zababa(k) of Kish, so he must have known
that these rulers were contemporaneous; and he cannot have avoided finding
similar synchronisms in the material from which his other “notes” were de-
rived. As we have seen earlier, the sources he used for this feature of the list
must have been texts of the epic-historical genre: epics, legends, historical
anecdotes, etc.; and such texts are extremely rich in synchronisms. It there-
fore seems certain that our author faced a serious contradiction between his
theories and his evidence. In the light of this dilemma his treatment of the
sources, which at first glance may appear curious, becomes very clear and un-
derstandable.
It is evident that if the author arranged the sources successively as just
suggested and compared the result with what he possessed of synchronisms his
longest sources would be the worst offenders; for, if two long lists which should
actually be placed side by side are arranged consecutively, the distance be-
tween any two contemporaneous rulers in them will naturally be much greater
than if the lists were short ones. If the long sources are cut up into smaller
units, however, and the units are so arranged that a unit of one source is suc-
ceeded by the corresponding unit of the other source, the discrepancies can be
considerably reduced. And this is exactly what has been done with the sources
in the King List. As an example we may mention the treatment of the rulers
of Uruk and Kish. There is here a s3mchronism between Gilgames of Uruk and
Aka of Kish which the author may well have known.^® If the complete Uruk
source were placed after the complete Kish source, the two contemporaneous
rulers, Gilgames and Aka, would be separated by sixteen other kings. If the
sources are cut up into smaller dynasties and joined as we find them in the
King List, however, only four rulers will intervene — an obvious improvement,
even though it too is not correct.
The arrangement of the sources which we meet in the King List thus proves
to be a compromise between two conflicting forces : on the one side the author^s
It appears in the text relating how Gilgames liberated Uruk by defeating Aka of Kish
(see p. 145i a. 20).
164
The Sumeeian King List
theory of a single ^^kingship^’ and the successive arrangement for which it calls,
on the other his knowledge of synchronisms showing up the errors to which
that arrangement leads. The theory has prevented him from radically rectify-
ing the errors, but he has tried to keep the worst of them down somewhat by
cutting his largest sources and joining the resulting units separately.
Summing up, we can therefore characterize the author’s working method as
follows; He used all his material In arranging it he was guided first of all by
a dogma: that Babylonia had always been united in a single kingdom with a
single capital, so that two different cities could never have held the ^^MngsMp’^
simultaneously. This dogmatic notion presupposed a successive arrangement
of his sources, which were mainly separate lists of rulers of various cities, an
arrangement which would necessarily conflict with the synchronisms which he
knew from other parts of his material. To reconcile in some measure the syn-
chronisms with the successive arrangement, the author therefore cut up the
larger of his sources into smaller units, the dynasties of which they consisted,
and joined the units separately; for by this means he was able to reduce some
of the worst discrepancies, even though he naturally could never get anywhere
near a true chronology. His treatment and arrangement of the sources become
thus in reality a bed of Procrustes. They constitute an effort to force correct
evidence into a mold shaped by an erroneous theory of Babylonian history.
V
HISTORICAL VALUE
RELATIVE VALUES OF FEATURES IN THE KING LIST
The results at which we have arrived in the foregoing pages have given us a
general idea of the sources which the author of the King List had at his dis-
posal and have shown us the manner in which he utilized them. We should
accordingly be in a position to judge the historical value of his finished work,
the King List.
Considering the King List and its information from this point of view, we
can discard first of all those features which must be ascribed to the author him-
self, more exactly the arrangement and succession of the individual dynasties.
As we have seen, the successive arrangement of the sources which the King
List exhibits resulted from the author’s erroneous theory of a single kingship.
It is true that the author seems also to have had a number of synchronisms and
that by cutting up his sources he tried to reconcile the arrangement in some
measure with their data, but these efforts could hardly do more than reduce
a few of the very worst errors and could not prevent the violent distortion of
his chronology which the successive arrangement implied.
While the arrangement of the King List must thus be considered of negli-
gible value, the actual material from which it has been built up inspires more
confidence.^ The material comes, as we have seen, mainly from local lists of
^ This result agrees in several points with earlier estimates of the historical value of the
King List. The worthlessness of the arrangement of the dynasties seems to have been sus-
pected by Legrain already in 1922. He writes: ^‘The problem of parallel dynasties is one
of the most troublesome for Babylonian chronolo^sts’^ {PBS XIII 17). It was brought
up energetically by Weidner in 1923 in Archiv fur Keilschriftforschung I 95 and later in
AOF III (1926) 198. From then on parallelisms were admitted as probable or certain by
most scholars, e.g. Meyer, Die dltere Chronologie . . . . , p. 38; hebngdoxiy Excavations at Kish
I (Paris, 1924) 5 f. and 100; Meissner in WZKM XXXII (1925) 296 and 303 and in his Die
hahyhnisch-assyrische Literatur (Wildpark-Potsdam, 1927) p. 88; Gadd in UE I (1927)
137 f.; Smith, EHA, p. 39; Landsberger in OLZ XXXIV (1931) 119.
As for the material of the King List, the obvious unreliability of the excessively long reigns
found in the earlier part of the list was naturally recognized from their first appear-
ance. But criticism has here gone farther than we have gone above and has raised the ob-
jection that kings who might be expected in the King List do not appear there. This point
was made by Thureau-Bangin as early as 1918 {La chronologie des dynasties de Sumer et
d’Accad, p. 66) and was often repeated later, e.g. by Langdon, OECT II 6 f.; Meyer, op. ait.
pp. 36 f.; Smith, EHA^ pp. 37-39; Landsberger, he. dt. Considered together with the other
165
166
The Sumebian King List
rulers, date lists kept in various cities for practical purposes; and the author
has done little to them beyond cutting up a few of the longer ones and dis-
tributing through his compilation the smaller units thus obtained. Such ma-
terials must undoubtedly be considered very reliable sources of information,
for most of these lists stop at the beginning of the Agade period and were
therefore in all probability copies from that period; and the practical purpose
which they served would guarantee their accuracy. Looking through these
sources we find also that only a single point invites criticism. In the longest
of them the earliest rulers appear with abnormally long reigns, often as much
as several hundred years. At a certain point the reigns then change and become
quite normal, keeping within what seems humanly possible. That the immense
reigns are unhistorical is obvious. Their occurrence in our material must be
ascribed to a tendency known also among other peoples of antiquity to form
very exaggerated ideas of the length of human life in the earliest times of which
they were conscious.^ These reigns must therefore be rejected. Since the tend-
ency which we have mentioned could of course have influenced only existing,
more correct figures or, if the list gave no reigns for these rulers, have prompted
somebody to add figures of this type, whereas it cannot have influenced or
changed the names and their mutual order, there is obviously no reason to
reject more than the exaggerated figures themselves.^
objections, this point has generally led to rejection of the King List. We may quote Thu-
reau-Dangin {loc. cit ) : les listes royales sont, pour la p4riode ant^rieure k Lugalzaggisi,
des t^moins tout au moins suspects (historiquement parlant)^^; Langdon {DECT II 6) :
is altogether obvious that the dynastic lists for the early period are totally inadequate”;
and Landsberger {loc. cit .) : ''Daraus ergibt sich, dass wir uns von der Konigsliste vollstandig
emanzipieren miissen.” It is seldom we find a verdict as lenient as Gadd's {UE I 138):
. it may perhaps be regarded as a principle in dealing with the king-list to consider
that the dynasties, the individual kings, and the general order of the accession of both, are
for the most part authentic, but that the figures, both items and totals, need severe criti-
cism.” In the estimate of the value of the King List as a historical source which we give in
this section we do not touch on the missing rulers at all. The importance of this point has,
we believe, been greatly overrated, mainly because of the false impression of the scope of
the King List which its author gives. We shall see later (pp. 180-83) that most of these
“missing” kings have in reality no valid claim to be expected in the sources of the King
List. For this reason our estimate of the value of the King List is higher than the usual one.
2Cf. Meyer, oj). cit. p. 36: “Wie in der aegyptischen Darstellung der Vorgeschichte ist
auch hier der tJbergang von den mythischen Gestalten der Urzeit vor und naeh der Flut zu
den ^testen wirklich geschichtlichen Erinnerungen durch ein schematisch durchgeftihrtes
Herabsinken der Lebensdauer und der Eegierungsjahre von vielen Jahrhunderten ....
auf das gegenwiirtige kurze Mass des menschlichen Lebens yermittelt.” Cf. also the similar-
ly high figures attributed to the Hebrew patriarchs in the Old Testament.
® Cf . also the verdict of Smith concerning the still higher figures of the antediluvian rulers
{EH Ay p. 22): “An impartial consideration of all the evidence must allow the possibility
Historical Value
167
Our conclusion concerning the historical value of the King List must thus
be that while the arrangement, the succession of the various dynasties, can be
considered a later construction of no significance, we possess in the actual ma-
terial of that document a historical source of high value, from which only some
exaggerated reigns occurring with the earliest rulers should be segregated.
ISOLATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SOURCES
The conclusions at which we have here arrived are obviously of the greatest
interest for Babylonian chronology. We have seen that the sources which the
author of the King List used can be considered reliable^ and we have seen also
that the material of these sources must be embodied unabridged in the present
King List (pp. 159-61), It should therefore be possible to undo the author’s
work, reconstruct and rearrange the original sources, and thus obtain a reliable
scheme covering the older periods of Babylonian history. Such far-reaching
consequences naturally make it desirable to test as far as possible the conclu-
sions on which they are based; and the most convincing test is to undertake
the reconstruction suggested, compare its result with what we know from other
sources about the chronology of the period concerned, and see whether they
agree.
Above we have seen how the individual sources used by the author can be
singled out (pp. 153-58). To make our test these sources should be correlated
and then compared with our other chronological material. For such correla-
tion, however, synchronisms are necessary; and, as the synchronisms which
we possess will allow us to correlate only five of the sources, those of Kish,
Uruk, Ur, Agade, and Akshak, we must content ourselves with them. For the
same reason material following the Agade dynasty in the King List has been
left out of consideration for the time being.
The Kish Source
The source from which the author of the King List got his rulers of Kish
may be reconstructed as shown on page 168.
The way in which the material can be singled out from that of the other
sources has been shown earlier, where we have also seen that the source in all
probability began with Etana. Instead of the 'legendary” reigns which ap-
peared in the source we have given the rulers in question average reigns of
that the names of these pre-diluvian kings and the city names associated with them may
be based on evidence of their existence available to the Babylonians about 2300-2100 b.c.
and unknown to us. In that ease their names were connected with the figures arbitrarily, for
some reason not yet apparent.”
168
The SuMEEiAisr King List
about 20 years j heightening them to 30 years, the average of a generation, in
the cases where a ruler was followed by his son.^ Where two sons succeeded a
Etana
i
Balih
En-me (n)-nunna
Melam-Kishi(k)
Bar-sal~ixunna
ca. 30 years
ca, 20 years
ca. 20 years
ca, 20 years
ca. 20 years
Samug
ca. 30 years
Tizkar
ca. 20 years
Ilktf
ca. 20 years
Ilta-sadum
ca. 20 years
En“me(n)-barage-si
1
ca. 30 years
Aka
ca. 20 years
Su. ...
ca. 20 years
Dadasig
ca. 20 years
Magalgalla
1
ca. 30 years
Kalbum
ca. 20 years
SE-e
ca, 20 years
GA+BUB-nun-na
ca. 20 years
Enbi-Eshtar
ca. 20 years
Lugalmu
ca. 20 years
Ku(g)-Baba
ca. 30 years
Puzur-Sin
25 years
i
Ur“Zababa(k)
ca. 20 years
Simu-d^r
30 years
Cr§i-watar
7 years
Eshtar-muti
11 years
Ishme-Shamash
11 years
Nannia
7 years
ruler on the throne and where we have thus only two generations, we have as-
signed 20 years to each of the three rulers.
The division into dynasties is that indicated by the 1 u g a 1 - m formu-
^ Compare with these figures the average of the reigns found in the 1st dynasty of Baby-
ioHj in which son followed father almost from the beginning of the dynasty to the end: a
little more than 27 years.
Historical Value
169
la. However, we have not separated Kn(g)-Baba from her son, because this
separation seems to be secondary and due to the author of the King List, who
needed room for the Akshak kings there. Only a few of the names need com-
ment. The reading of the name Samug has been discussed above (p. 82, n. 85).
Our reasons for preferring the form Magalgalla were given on page 96, note 154.
This leaves only one name still to be discussed, the one which we read Enbi-
Eshtar. The section in which it occurs is preserved only in version WB. The
line in question reads, according to collation (the part outlined in dotted line
represents erasure) :
That this line is corrupt is clear. The ancient copyist apparently did not un-
derstand what he was copying. It seems possible, however, to trace the original
form. The clue is given by the second sign, which can only stand for an original
that is, RECj No. 381, gurun : enhu. This sign may be considered
in connection with the damaged sign at the end of the line which Langdon reads
i s (?) but w^hich more likely represents an original tar. Since we know
a king of Kish by the name Enbi-Eshtar,® it seems highly probable that our
scribe was trying to render as faithfully as he could a damaged line
e nb i'^^’ - e §4- 1 4r
^Enbi (gloss: Inib)-Eshtar.^^
His smoothing of the surface or “erasure^ ^ would represent the shading of a
modern copyist; and a few accidental scratches of his original were taken over
as wedges, especially between and < , so that the latter became ^ .
The Uruk Source
The Uruk source can be reconstructed as shown on page 170.
As in the Kish source, we have replaced the ^'legendary” reigns with aver-
age reigns of 20 and 30 years. In the 2d dynasty also we have used average
reigns, since the actual figures are unknown, but we have here made an excep-
tion from our usual procedure, inasmuch as we have assigned the maximum,
30 years, to each of the three rulers of the dynasty. Only one point, namely
the 2d dynasty, which has come down to us in badly corrupted form, causes
5 PBS IV 1, p. 151.
170
The Sumerian King List
Mes-kiag-gasher
ca.
30
years
En-me(r)-kar
ca.
20
years
Lugahbanda
ca.
20
years
Dumu-zi(d)
ca.
20
years
Giigames
ca.
30
years
Ur-Nungal(ak)
30
years
Utul-kalamma(k)
15
years
Laba, . . .ir
9
years
Eii-nun-dara-Anna(k)
8
years
Mes(?)-he
36
years
Melam-Anna(k)
6
years
Lugal-ki4un(?)
36
years
En-shakush-Anna (k)
ca.
30
years
[Lugai-kinishe-dudu]
[Lugal-kisal-si]
ca.
30
years
ca.
30
years
Lugal-zage-si
25
years
difficulties in the reconstruction of this source. WB, where it is best preserved,
reads:
iv 45 u n u^^ - g a e n - § a k 4n - § a 4 - a n - n a
46 1 u g a 1 » ^ m HI u 1 § u « s i i - as
47 nam-lugal-bi mu 2 §u-§i i-as
48 m u 7 i-as
As will be seen, the text is in order down to line 46 only. The following line
begins with the words nam-lugal-bi, ^‘its kingship,/^ which in reality
belong to the last part of the formula for change of dynasty, nam-
lugal-bi s d b a - 1 d m , ^^its kingship was carried to the city B,^^
and continues with mu 2 §u-§i i-as, -ffie reigned 120 years, which
is a formula for the reign of a single ruler. The last line, mu 7 i- as ,
“he reigned 7 years, also contains such a formula. What we have here can
be no more than gleanings, a few disconnected phrases still readable in an
otherwise badly broken section of the scribe's original. To judge from what
is left, that section must originally have listed two individual rulers with their
reigns and— presumably after a dynasty total which has been completely lost
—closed with the formula for change of dynasty. We can therefore conclude
that our dynasty had three rulers in all, En-shakush-Anna(k) and the two of
whom we have only traces in the lines giving individual reigns.
Histoeigal Value
171
This conclusion is supported by the evidence of another of our versions, P 2 .
This version states that five dynasties of Uruk, numbering 22 rulers, were
enumerated in the King List; and from our other versions we know that the
1 st, 3d, 4th, and 5th dynasties of this city had 19 kings in all There are thus
three left for the 2d dynasty, as the text of WB suggests. The text of SU 3+4 also,
which preserves traces of this section, is explicable on the assumption of three
rulers in the dynasty. It has after the reign of Emshakush-Anna(k) the entry
[li-gu ba]-an-d 6 -a [..mu ij-as, “Somebody who has disappeared
reigned . . years,” and then gives the dynasty total This probably reflects
a manuscript in which the second ruler and all but the reign of the third had
disappeared in a lacuna.
Since all our sources thus seem to agree, we can confidently assume that the
2 d dynasty numbered three rulers. Less fortunate are we when it comes to
determining how long these rulers reigned. As we have seen, some figures have
been rescued by WB from the damaged section in its original These figures,
however — 60, 120 , and 7 — are not of a nature to inspire much confidence. We
know, further, that they come from a fragmentary text which must have been
difficult to read, and we have no means to judge how much of the figures the
copyist could actually read, how much he himself restored. It is therefore im-
possible to use this material with any confidence, and we have accordingly
assigned average reigns to the rulers concerned.
It remains to consider the identity of the rulers in this dynasty. The list
has preserved the name of the first of them. It appears completely in WB only
and is there written e n - -nu - a n - n a (in photograph). That this
writing must cover the name of the king En-shakush--Anna(k), who reigned
in Uruk® and who on epigraphic evidence can be placed a few generations be-
fore Lugal-zage-si, seems obvious.*^ We have therefore assumed that the doubt-
ful second sign (in Langdon's copy) is to be identified with earlier
which has the value sakdn, and read the name en-sakan-
s a 4 - a n - n a
After en-sakan-§a 4 -an-na our source must have listed two
other rulers, who would come immediately before Lugal-zage-si. From his-
torical inscriptions we know of two rulers of Uruk who must be assigned to
® As suggested by his title lugal kalam-ma; see Poebel, PBS' IV 1, p. 153.
^ The identification has been accepted as probable by Langdon, OECT II 6 and 14, n. 9; ef.
also Christian’s remarks in AOF VIII (1932/33) 209.
^^Ensakasanna(k) constitutes a normal later form of ensa(g)kusan-
n a (k) , in which the unstressed u oi k u § has been assimilated to the following a in
4 n n a (k) . Cf. e.g. d u r a h , ^‘bouquetin/’ >dara(h) (d^ra), *suhar (loan
word from Akkadian fuf^arum)^ *'page,” > s a h a r .
172
ThB' SxJMEEIAH 'KllSrG LiST
just that time: lugal-ki-axTB-Ki-dtiT-du? , whose name, as recent
texts have shown, is to be read Lugal-kinishe-dudu,® and his son(?) Lugal-
kisal-si.® It therefore seems evident that these are the two names missing in
our source, and we have accordingly restored them in the gap.^®
The Ur Source
The Ur source can be reconstructed as follows:
Mes-Anne-pada
<A-Anne«pada>
Mes-kiag-nunna(k)
Elulu
Baliilu
ca, 40 years
ca. 40 years
36 years
25 years
36 years
80 years
[Lu]gal-[kmishe-dud]u ca, 16 years
[Lugal-kisa]l-si ca, 30 years
, . . .gi ca, 35 years
[Ka]“ku (g) ca. 35 years
116 years
As in the previous reconstructions, the division of the rulers into dynasties
follows the lugal-^m indications. Version WB gives, it is true,
®Lugal-ki - GUB-Ni - d Ut - d uy was, according to his own inscriptions, king of
both Uruk and Ur {SAKj p. 156, No. 3 6). He reigned together with his son(?) Lugal-
kisal-si, and the two kings appear together in an inscription (SAK^ p. 156, No. 3 c). To the
same time as Lugal-ki - gub-ni - d uy - d uy belongs— for epigraphic reasons — a cer-
tain Lugal-ki-ni-s^-diiy-duy, who similarly was ruler of Uruk (Gadd in RA
XXVII [1930] 125 f.; Barton in JAOS LI [19311262-^5; HrUckmann in An, Or, XII [1935]
200 f.) and who in an inscription from Ur also appears together with Lugal-kisal-si {UET I,
No. 3). In this inscription a certain a-nu-zsu who is ^Wrchant of the king Lugal-
kinislie-dudu (dam-kar-ra [lugai]-fkP[“UiI“§^-dU 7 -d uy lugal-kam)'^
dedicates an alabaster vase to Nanna for the life of Nin-tur and Lugal-kisal-si (n a m - 1 i
lugal-kisal-[si-s^]). Since lug a 1 - k i - gub-ni - d uy - d uy with transposi-
tion of the signs gub and Ni can be read lug a I - k i - n i - § eis - d uy - d uy , there can
be no doubt that the two rulers are identical. That transposition of signs, which on the
whole belongs to the period before E-Anna(k)-tum, can still occur at the time of our ruler
is shown by the writing 1 u g a 1 - s i - k i s a 1 (BE I 2, PL 37, 1. 7 from end) as against
lugal-kisal-si (AJSL XXI [1904/5] 63). Cf. also BE I 2, PL 37, 1. 4 from end:
nam-ti-le-la for nam-ti-la-S^. The identity of the rulers Lugal-kinishe-
dudu and lugal-ki- gub-ni - d uy - d uy was first pointed out by Langdon in JRAS^
1931, pp. 421-24, He overlooked, however, the important evidence of identity given by
A-nu-zu's inscription, because he read [lugal]-ki[-GUB-ni]-duy-[du 7 ] instead
of [1 u g a 1] - ^’k i"* [- n i] - s 5 - d uy - d Uy , which it actually has.
^BAK,p. 156, Nos. 3
Thus also Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 107, Langdon, DECT II 14, n. 9, and others. Since these
names can with great probability be restored where the list now has a lacuna, no conclusion
as to insufficient knowledge on the part of the author of the list can be drawn from their
alleged absence, as is done by Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 7.
Histokical Value
, 173 ,
1 u g a 1 - a. m after the name of Mes-kiag-numia(k) also, but this variant does
not appear in our other source for the section, P 2 , and is obviously a mere
scribal error. A eoppst strayed from the line mes-ki-ag-%anna
d u m u m e s - a n - n 4 - pA - da back into the earher mes-an-ne-pa-
d a 1 u g a 1- &.m .
After the name of Mes-Anne-pada we have restored that of his son and suc-
cessor, A-Anne-pada, which in all probability originally appeared in the King
List at this place, although it has been lost by our present versions. As pointed
out by Gadd,^^ the much too high reign now assigned to Mes-Anne-pada, 80
years, contrasts with the otherwise reasonable and trustworthy figures of the
dynasty and suggests a conflation of two reigns, Mes-Anne-pada^s own and
that of his son. The name A-Anne-pada was probably lost by some early
copyist, while the regnal years survived and were eventually added to those
of Mes-Anne-pada.^^
The following name, Mes-kiag-nunna(k), appears in this form in P 2 , whereas
WB gives mes-ki-ag-%anna. That P 2 has preserved the correct
form is shown by a contemporaneous inscription from Ur which reads [m e s -
k]i - 4 [g] - n u n 1 u g a 1 u r ^^Mes-kiag-nun(ak), king of Ur.”^^ The
form Mes-kiag-Nanna(k) must be due to mishearing; this is especially likely
since it is more natural to expect the element ^n a n n a , the name of the
chief god of Ur, than the element n u n n a in a royal name from that city.
The figure for Mes-kiag-nunna(k) -s reign likewise appears in two different
forms. P 2 gives 30 years, and another source, Li, which has preserved a total
for this dynasty agreeing with that of P 2 , probably had the same figure. WB,
however, gives 36 years. There can be little doubt that WB is here the original ;
for while it is easy to see how the figure 36 if slightly damaged
could become 30 (^) in a later copy, the opposite development would be
difiS-Cult to account for.
Passing to the 2d dynasty we come — as in the Uruk source — to the most
troublesome part of the tradition. We have here, however, a better basis to
UE I 128. Gaddis conclusion has been accepted by most scholars, e.g. Sidney Smith,
EH A} p. 36, and O. E. Ravn, Bahylmske og assyriske Kongers historiske Indskrifter^ p. 28.
As the high reign of Mes-Anne-pada must be considered an indication that A-Anne-pada
originally appeared in the list, the latter^s absence in our present versions cannot be used as
an argument to show that “the authors” of the list had incomplete knowledge of their sub-
ject, as is done by Giiterbock in ZA n.P. VIII 7: “Gerade diese Auslassung des inschriftlich
belegten Konigs zeigt tibrigens, wie unvollstandige Kenntnisse die Verfasser der KSnigsliste
hatten.”
Bm-rows in UE II 321, n. 10 (U 11675).
174
The Sumerian King List
work from. We may consider first the question of how many rulers and how
many years should be assigned to that dynasty.
Version P2 gives 3 dynasties, 13 kings, and 396 years as grand total for Ur,
As shown by the total after the 1st dynasty, it assigned four rulers to that
dynasty; and, since all our other versions agree that the 3d dynasty had five
rulers, we can assume that P2 likewise counted five rulers there. Subtracting
the four rulers of the 1st dynasty and the five of the 3d dynasty from the
thirteen given in the grand total leaves four rulers for the 2d dynasty, with
which we are concerned.
As for the reigns, P2 gives 171 years for the 1st dynasty, but the figures for
the 3d dynasty are missing and must be supplied from other sources. It is
clear that a reconstruction must be based on P5, which belongs to the same
main branch of the tradition (the B branch) as does P2 and comes from the
same place, Nippur.^'^ The figures given by P5 in this section
Ur-Nammu(k)
18
Shulgi
58
Bur-Sin
9
Shti-Sin
7
I(b)bi-Sin
25
are by no means correct. Shulgi reigned, as we have seen above (p. 122, n. 321),
only 48 years, not 58, and Shu-Stn reigned 9 years, not 7.^^ We are therefore
faced with the problem of whether these errors developed before the tradition
which P5 represents had separated from that of P2, in which case they would
have appeared in P2 also, or whether they developed later, in which case they
would be peculiar to P5. It is very fortunate that this question can be decided,
at least as far as the worst error, that in the reign of Shulgi, is concerned. We
have seen above that the development from the original (48) to Pb^s
( 58) is naturally explained by the fact that P5 places the sign for year,
mu, in front of the figures, so that in a careless copyist could
easily come to count one of the final < -wedges of m u as part of the figure.
This arrangement must be considered an innovation introduced in Ps^s line of
SU3+4, which also belongs to the same branch as P2, cannot come into consideration.
This text, as shown above (pp. 25, 51, and 108-9, nn. 219, 221, 224, and 228), has passed
through a badly damaged ancestor which later copyists tried to restore as best they could.
Since that ancestor (Su) must be placed at a point after the tradition represented by SU3+4
and Sui had swerved off from the tradition represented by P2, it is obvious that Su3+4 con-
tains a number of errors — due to restorations made in this damaged text — ^which P2 would
not have had.
The figure for I(b)bt -Sin, 25 years, differs by one year from that given in WB, 24 years,
but is the more likely to be correct (see above, p. 123, n. 331).
Histokical Value
175
descent after it had passed Y. P 2 , however, which we are trying to reconstruct,
does not have this innovation but retains the arrangement characteristic of
the B group as a whole, placing m u after the figure. Here such a mistake
is not likely to happen, and we must accordingly conclude that P 2 had the orig-
inal 48 years for Shulgi. It is somewhat more difficult to decide whether P 2
also retained the original figure for Shu-Sin, 9 years, or whether it already had
the erroneous 7 years which we find in P5. However, since P 2 , written, in the
reign of Enlil-bant (see p. 6 ), is considerably older than P 5 , which dates from
the second half of the 1st d 3 Tiasty of Babylon (see p. 7), it seems probable
that it would be less corrupt, and we may therefore restore it with 9 years
for Shti-Sin. In any case this question is not of great importance, since it is a
matter of only two years. We thus get
18
48
9
9
25
Total 109
Ur-Nammu(k)
Shulgi
Bur-Sin
Shu-Sin
I(b)bi-Sin
as the most likely text for P 2 in the section with which we are concerned. Sub-
tracting P 2 's total for the 1 st dynasty of Ur, 171 years, and this reconstructed
total for the 3d dynasty, 109 years, from the 396 years which P 2 has as grand
total for all three Ur dynasties, leaves 116 years to represent the duration of
the 2 d dynasty of Ur.
The next question must then concern the identity of the four rulers. Besides
the kings appearing in the 1 st and 3d dynasties of Ur, we know from inscrip-
tions three other kings of that city. Lugal-kinishe-dudu and Lugal-kisal-si,
whom we have mentioned above, were kings of Ur as well as rulers of Uruk.
A third king of Ur, Ka-ku(g), is mentioned in inscriptions of Rimush of Agade,
who defeated and captured him.^® Utilizing this knowledge, we may now turn
to the sparse remnants of the section concerning the 2d dynasty of Ur which
have been preserved in version Sui and try to restore its text (parallel to WB
V 2-13):
iv 1 [u r 1^’ - § e] a - 1 d
[ur]P‘««
[1 u g a 1 “ k i - n i] - f’s 5 - d U7 - d u?"*
[lu g al] - lam^
to Ur was carried.
In Ur
Lugal-kinishe-dudu
became king
PBS IV 1, pp. 189 f., Text N xvii 3-9; p. 192, Text O xix 10-12; p. 193, Text P xix
31-34.
176 The Sumerian King List
5
m u]
li’-as
(and) reigned . . years ;
[lugal]
- k i s a I -
siU?)
Lugalkisal-si,
[dumu
lu]gal-[ki-ni-
1 6 - d U 7 ] - y ut’
son of Lugal-kinishe-diidu,
mii]
'i’-as
reigned . . years;
[ ] - g 14
...'.gi;
10
[. .]
to
i-as
reigned . . years;
k -
ku^
Ka-ku(g),
[dumu
1 - g i4 - k 64
son of . . . .gi,
[. .]
to
i-as
reigned . . years.
r 4 i
lugal
4 kings.
As so little is left of the signs, it is necessary to comment on the restoration
line by line.
In line 1 is left; we consider it remnants of In line 2
WBMM is left; assuming that the shaded na of the copy should be ki, we
consider this remnants of In line 3 WSWM, is left; we consider
it remnants of In line 4 there is , which we consider
remnants of In line 5 is left; this is obviously
In line 6 is left; it seems possible that this could represent
In line 7 is left; these traces agree with a restoration
In line 8 is left, obviously remnants of In line 9 the
sign Hi (g i 4 ) remains at the end. Line 10 has rather complete traces of
[ . . ] u”^ i - as (na). In line 11 we find which we have restored
as ^ka-ku"*, assuming it to be the remnants of Line 12 has
Line 13 has the end of mu and quite clear i-as (na).
Line 14, finally, gives the head of a single wedge of Vr (4) and a clear
lugal.
The text thus restored gives the order and names of the rulers but has not
preserved a single reign. We must therefore content ourselves with the total,
which, as we saw above, was probably 116 years. The figures given in our re-
construction of the source add up to this total but are otherwise chosen arbi-
trarily.
The Akshak Source
The reconstruction of this source presents little difficulty:
IJnzi
30 years
Undalulii
12 years
Ur-ur
6 years
Puzur-Nirah
20 years
Ishti-il
24 years
Shu-Sln
7 years
Histoeicai. Value
177
The reigns here quoted are those found in version S. WB, which has preserved
the first two kings and their reigns, gives Undalulu 6 years only; and Sui,
which has the last two reigns, gives Shu-Sin 24 years instead of 7. Since both
these variants can have developed out of the figures of S by simple dittog-
raphy, whereas the opposite development would be hard to account for, we
must assume that S preserves the original text. In the case of WB we must
assume that the copyist erroneously looked at the figure 6 for Ur-ur which
occurred in the line following the one he should copy; and in Sui the scribe
has strayed from the line s u « ‘^s 1 n d u m u i - § u - i I mu 7 I - as back
into the preceding i - s u - i 1 mu 24 i - as and thus got 24 years for Shu-
Sin also.
That the figures of S are indeed the original ones is shown also by a curious
correspondence pointed out by Langdon^’’^ between their sum, 99 years, and
the 100-year reign given to Ku(g)-Baba. As we have seen earlier, the author
of the King List inserted the d3masty of Akshak between Ku(g)-Baba and her
son Puzur-Sin, apparently because he knew a synchronism between Ku(g)-
Baba and a ruler of that dynasty. This meant, however, that Ku(g)-Baba
became separated from her son by as much as 99 years, the length of the
dynasty of Akshak. To bridge the gap he prolonged her reign so that it became
one year longer than the Akshak dynasty, namely 100 years.
The Agade Souece
This source may be reconstructed as follows
Sargon 56 years
Rimush
Man-ishtushu
9 years
15 years
Narim-Sin
Shar-kali-sharri
Igigi
Naiium
Imi
Eliilu
Dudu
Shu-Durul
37(?) years
25 years
3 years
f 181 years
21 years
15 years
We have based the reconstruction on WB, which, as we saw above (pp.
26 f .), seems to give the better text for this section. The lacuna covering the
DECT II 7.
178
The Sxtmebian Kino List
reigns of Naram-Stn, Shar-kali-sharri, and the four rulers of the interregnum
has to be restored from the other versions. We have accepted the 3 years for
the interregnum given by P3 and S. The reign of 25 years for Shar-kali-sharri
follows Li and Su3-i-4, although it is not quite certain that this figure is preferable
to the 24 3?’ears of P3. The very high figure for Nar4m-«Sin, 56 years, which
we find in Li and, as it seems, in P3 would make our individual reigns come to
a sum higher than the total which WB indicates, 181 years; we have therefore
given Nar^m-Sin a reign of only 37 years to make the reconstruction agree
with WB^s totalis
CORRELATION OF THE SOURCES
The next step after the reconstruction of the sources must obviously be to
place them in correct relation to one another in time. To do this we must seek
the help of synchronisms.
Ur and Agade
We have mentioned above that the traces left of the name of the last king
of the 2d dynasty of Ur could be restored as Ka-ku(g) and also that Rtmush
of Agade in his inscriptions says that he defeated and captured ‘TCa-ku(g),
king of Ur.” This event is mentioned by Rlmush immediately after he has
stated that Enlil gave him kingship, 1® and we may therefore assume that it
took place early in his reign. Allowing a year after Rlmush’s accession for
the young king to get settled and to prepare for his first great military under-
taking, we may tentatively place the capture of Ka-ku(g) and the end of
the 2d dynasty of Ur around Rimush^s second year.^®
Agade, Kish, and Uruk
Rimush^s father, Sargon, began as cupbearer of Ur-Zababa(k) of Kish.
Later on, however, he must have become independent for he founded a city
of his own, Agade, and finally, having defeated and captured Lugal-zage-si
of Uruk, became suzerain of all Babylonia. From Sargon^s inscriptions we can
conclude that the reign of his master Ur-Zababa(k) ended in a catastrophe
which left Kish ruined and partly deserted; for, after the victory over Lugal-
zage-si, Sargon states that he 'Restored” Kish, which must thus have been in
i^Cf. the discussion of this figure on p. 112, n. 251.
19 p. 118 xvi 52-xvii 6,
90 Note also that Rtmush^s campaign against Elam, which could hardly have been under-
taken before he had Babylonia itself firmly in hand, falls as early as the third year after he
had received the kingship (ibid. p. 124, No. 10 xxiii 50-55: in sa-an-tim sa4i-iMim la4i
^m4il Mr-ruirtdm irii-^u-mm ) — a fact which confirms our dating of the war against Ka-
ku(g) to Rimush^s second year.
Historical Value
179
mins at that time.^^ Now the only one who could thus haye destroyed Kish
is obviously Lugal-zage-si, who in his fight for the hegemony of Babylonia must
have defeated Ur-Zababa(k) and destroyed his city in the same ruthless way
in which he had earlier destroyed other opponents. The defeat of Ur-Zababa(k)
and the destruction of his city would of course make Ur-Zababa(k)^s cup-
bearer, Sargon, independent, so that he could found his own city and set up
as ruler there. We can therefore count Sargon^s 56 years, which must repre-
sent his reign in Agade,^^ from the fall of Ur-Zababa(k) ; and we must place
that event in the reign of Lugal-zage-si. Since we do not know exactly when
in that reign it occurred, we may place it at the middle, where we shall get the
smallest margin of error.
Akshak AND Kish
The Chronicle Weidner contains an anecdote relating how Ku(g)-Baba,
who lived under King Puzur-Nirah of Akshak, was given “the kingship of all
lands^^ because of a pious deed.^^ The historical kernel in this quite legendary
story would seem to be that Ku(g)-Baba of Kish vanquished Akshak and de-
throned its king, Puzur-Nirah. We can therefore assume that Ku(g)-Baba and
Puzur-Nirah were contemporaries; and since we do not know exactly when in
Ku(g)-Baba^s reign she gained her victory over Akshak, we may as above
place it at the middle to get as small a margin of error as possible.
Ueuk and Lagash
By means of the synchronisms just mentioned we can correlate the five
sources which we have reconstmcted, but to facilitate comparisons with other
chronological evidence it will be practical also to fix their position in relation
to the list of rulers of Lagash which at present forms the backbone of Baby-
lonian chronology for the older periods.
When Lugal-zage-si was as yet only e n s i (k) of Umma he captured and
sacked Lagash severely.^^ His opponent in Lagash, XJru-KA-gina, carries from
his second to his eighth year the title “king^^ ; since his dates then stop abruptly
Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 176: ^^Sarru-kin, king of the land, restored Kis (i.e.j the people
of Elis) in its (old) place. Their city (or the city) he gave to them as a dwelling place.”
22 As we have seen, the sources used by the author of the King List were local date lists.
2® Giiterbock in ZA n.F. VIII 51 and 54. Giiterbock objects to Weidner^s reading, Puzur-
Sahan (AOF III [1926] 198; Altorientalische Studien Bruno Meissner .... geundmet ....
[Altorientalische GeseUschaft, ^^Mitteilungen” IV (Leipzig, 1928-29)] p. 230), on the grounds
that there is not room for the sign Mus : § a a n , n i r a ; but the remnants shown
in the copy and photograph published by him suit indeed a somewhat cramped mus very
well.
24>8Air, pp. 56 and 58. Lugal-zage-si is called “e n s i (k) of Umma” in rev, iii 11“13.
180
The Sumeeian King List
we may place Lugal-zage-si^s attack there. In the King List LugaLzage-si^s reign
is given as 25 years, but as this figure comes from an Uruk source we must
assume that it refers to his reign in that city only. The sack of Lagash should
therefore be some years earlier; as we do not know exactly how many, we may
use the minimum and equate the eighth year of Uru-KA-gina with the year
before that in which Lugal-zage-si ascended the throne of Uruk, admitting
that we may be skipping some years.
From tablets dated to their reigns we know that Uru-KA-gina of Lagash
ruled 8 years and that his immediate predecessors, En-e(n)tar-zi(d) and Lugal-
anda, ruled 5 and 7 years respectively. For the time before Lugal-anda we
lack such indications; but, since the eight rulers from Gurshar to En-Anna-tum
II represent seven generations, we may ascribe the average length of a genera-
tion, thirty years, to each of them except A-Kurgal(ak) and his two sons,
E-Anna(k)-tum and En-Anna-tum I. These three together represent only two
generations, and we must therefore count only twenty years for each.
We thus get Table 1.
COMPARISONS WITH DATA FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS
The table which we have drawn up cannot, of course, claim absolute exacti-
tude. In correlating the sources we often had to reckon with a small margin
of error, and in several sections we had to use average figures for the reigns.
These possible inexactitudes can, however, have influenced only the details.
The main lines of the scheme are not dependent on them and can be wrong
only if the foundation on which we have built — that the dynasties in the King
List can be pieced together into complete individual lists with reliable material
— is itself erroneous.
The comparison of the table with other chronological evidence will therefore
be a test of fundamentals. If the chronological facts to be found in royal in-
scriptions and other independent sources do not fit the picture which this
table gives, then the analysis and evaluation of the material in the King List
which we have given above must have been false. Correspondingly, essential
agreement will prove that analysis correct.
^^Missing Rulees^^
The first question which such a comparison raises must concern the fact
that relatively few rulers appear in both the King List and outside material.
This has sometimes been quoted as an indication that the King List is not re-
liable (see pp. 2-3; nn. 10 and 12 above) but is in reality only to be expected in
view of its scope and nature. As we have seen, the author had as sources date
Man-ishtushu
HisTOEiCAi4 Value
181
lists from a limited number of cities. A few of these were fairly long, but most
of them were only short lists. His material was thus limited in both time and
place. There is, to quote an example, nothing extraordinary in the fact that
none of the many rulers of Lagash whom we know from their inscriptions re-
appears in the King List, for the author had no list from Lagash among his
sources. The same reason explains the absence of rulers from Umma, the neigh-
bor of Lagash, and from many other cities. The limitations in time must also
be taken into consideration. Inscriptions of E-Anna(k)-tum of Lagash state
that he defeated a ruler of Akshak by the name of Zuzu.^^ This ruler is not
mentioned in the King List. But, as our table shows, the author’s source for
Akshak began sometime within the reign of E-Anna(k)-tum, and Zuzu can
very well have preceded the first ruler mentioned in that source, Unzi. It may
even have been the very defeat of Zuzu at the hands of E-Anna(k)4um which
brought a new dynasty, that of Unzi, to the throne in Akshak.
Just as in the case of Akshak, we know rulers of Ur who do not appear in
the Ur source used by the author of the lUng List, namely Mes-kalam-du(g)
and A-kalam-du(g).^^ But the Ur source begins with the 1st dynasty of Ur,
and stratigraphic evidence has shown that Mes-kalam-du(g) and A-kalam-
du(g) belong to the time before that dynasty it is therefore natural that we
do not find their names.^^
Lastly we must consider the case of Kish. We know a certain number of
rulers who in their inscriptions designate themselves as kings of Kish but who
do not appear in the Kish source, namely Me-silim,^® Lugal. . . Mes-
Anne-pada,^^ Ur-zaged,^^ Lugal-tarsi,^® Sargon, Rimush, and Man-ishtushu.®^
p. 20 iv 27-v8.
UE II 316 and PL 191 (U 11751, U 11825, U 10001, U 10002, U 10004, U 10081).
Woolley, UE II 218“-22. The evidence of stratigraphy there presented seems to us de-
cisive and unshakable. We have seen no argument for a lower date which could be con-
sidered convincing.
28 The special case of A-Anne-pada, who probably appeared in the King List in its original
form, has been discussed in detail on p. 173, n. 12.
SAK, p. 160; Liickenbill, Inscriptions from Adah (OIP XIV [1930]) Nos. 1 and 5.
Mentioned as king of Kish by En-temena {SAKy p. 36 i 8-9).
88 Dec , PL 5 ieTj No. 1. See below, n. 34.
8iraiI312f. (U 13607): [me]s-an-n4-p^-da lugal
p. 160.
and FO/S I, No. 6.
8^ See the inscriptions of these rulers listed in RJSAf pp. 100-136. The famous spearhead
from Telloh (D^c., Pi. 5 ter. No. 1) is inscribed lugal. ...lugal kisi. The traces
following the initial lugal are at present undecipherable. In the first reproduction
182
The Sumerian King List
The reason why these rulers are missing is easy to see. It is well loiown that
the title “king of Kish'' was so highly prized that rulers of other cities preferred
to style themselves “king of Kish" rather than king of their own city if they
could claim that Kish acknowledged their suzerainty. The sources of the King
List, on the other hand, were local date lists concerned with local rulers only.
In such a source we should therefore find the local rulers of Kish and not the
suzerains. Now we can show from other material that four of the kings men-
tioned above actually were only such suzerains and belong elsewhere, namely
Mes-Anne-pada, whose city was Ur, and Sargon, Rimush, and Man-ishtushu,
who belong in Agade. And since the others, Me-silim, Lugal. . . . , Ur-zaged,
and Lugal-tarsi, have no more claim to connection with Kish than those four,
it is natural to assume that they are missing in the Kish source for the same
reason; they are suzerains and not genuine rulers.'^^
In reality there is only one case where we have reason to assume that one
of the sources has omitted a ruler whom we could have expected to find. We
possess the inscription of a certain Utuk who styles himself “e n s i (k) of
Kish" and dedicates a vase to the city god Zababa,^® In this case, therefore,
we have a genuinely local ruler; and we must accordingly assume that the
Kish source as we have it has lost his name in the course of tradition, as could,
naturally, happen.
of the spearhead {RA III [1896] 53, Fig. 1) they were rendered •'u r"* , which would
give the name ur-lugal (lugal-ur with transposition of signs) lugal ki§i,
“Ur4ugal(ak), king of Kish.” Since this reproduction was based on photographs
alone (Heuzey in EA III 54, n. 2), whereas the reproduction in Dec, (cf. also EA IV [1897]
111, Fig. 18) is made from the monument itself, w’e can hardly accept its reading, however
tempting an identification of its XJr“lugal(ak), king of Kish, with Ur4ugal(ak), son of Gil-
games, would be. (The date of the lance — ^it was found discarded!?] at the XJr-Nanshe(k)
level [EA IV 111]; note also absence of determinative after k i si — is clearly before Ur-
Nanshe(k); the Gilgames text mentioned on p. 145, n. 20, suggests that Kish at Gilgames^
time acknowledged the supremacy of Uruk.)
We have not included any reference to a 1 - [ ] 1 u g a 1 k i § i^Mn the Stele of Vul-
tures rev. xii, since, as Poebel has pointed out {PBS IV 1, p. 167, n. 1), it is '^entirely un-
certain” that the sign a 1 - begins the name of a king. We are also disregarding the name
la-..-..-§i-i mentioned by Langdon, Excavations at Kish I 5, until full publica-
tion of the inscription in which it appears makes it possible to check the reading.
That this explanation holds good can be directly shown in the case of Ur-zaged, vrho
in his inscription styles himself lugal kisi^^ lugal [....], 'king of Kish, king of
Here the title "king of Eush” is clearly placed before the original title of the king
because of its greater importance. It should be mentioned that Langdon also {OECT II
6 f.) considers the explanation given above as a probable reason why certain "kings of
Kish” are not mentioned in the King List. Cf. also Landsberger in OLZ XXXIV (1931)
121, n. 3: . ist die Lokalisierung des Me-silim in Kis nicht mehr zwingend.”
^^SAK,p.m,
, ■ ' HisTOBicAii Value 183
We have thus reviewed the question of the relative scarcity of overlaps be-
tween the material in the King List and the contemporaneous inscriptions.
We see too that there is only a single case in which we could actually have ex-
pected to find a “missing^' ruler mentioned in the King List,®^ and that one
case is easily explicable as an accidental omission in the King List or in its
source in the course of tradition. There is accordingly no disagreement here
between the evidence of the inscriptions and the sources of the King List.
Synchronisms
We may now turn to the more positive and definite part of the comparison
and consider the outside evidence which has a bearing upon the time and
relative position of rulers who do appear in the sources which we have corre-
lated in our table.
EN-TEMENA-LUGAL-KINISHE-nUDU
An inscription of En-temena states that this ruler concluded ^^brotherhood'^
with the e n s i (k) of Uruk, Lugal-kinishe-dudu.^® These two rulers must
therefore have been contemporaries. Comparing our table, we see that the
reigns of En-temena and Lugal-kinishe-dudu partly overlap. There is thus at
this point full agreement between the table and the outside evidence.
en-shak:ush-anna(k)--enbi-eshtar
An inscription of En-shakush-Anna(k)®® relates that he defeated and cap-
tured Enbi-Eshtar, king of Kish. Reconstructing the Kish source used by the
author of the King List, we found that the name of the king before Lugalmu
should be read Enbi-Eshtar (gloss based on form Inib-Eshtar; see p. 169);
now that the sources have been correlated, we see that the reign of this ruler
corresponds in its last part to that of En-shakush-Anna(k).^^ There is thus
here also perfect agreement between the table and the outside evidence.
Since we are here concerned with the question of whether or not the sources of the King
List were so , elliptical that their evidence cannot be used, we have not counted the two
cases in which existing traces show that a ruler originally appeared in the list but was lost
during the course of tradition, namely Mashda (pp. 21-22) and A-Anne-pada (p. 93, n. 145),
nor those cases where rulers known from inscriptions can plausibly be restored in existing
lacunas, such as the rulers of Ur II and certain Gutian kings. Comments on these cases
will be found in the notes to the text of the King List in chap. iii.
38 Gadd in EA XXVII (1930) 125 f.; Barton in JAGS LI (1931) 262-65.
39 PBS IV 1, p. 151.
"^9 The King List uses a late form of the name, En-shakash-Anna(k) ; see p. 171.
184
The Sumerian, King List
EN-SHAKUSH-ANNA(k)*“ELULU
An inscription of En-shakush-Anna(k)^^ tells that this ruler was son of
E - 1 i " 1 i - n [a] . Elili(n) appears as E « 1 i - 1 i , king of Ur, in Ms own
brick inscription^^ ^nd as E-lu-lu in the 1st dynasty of Ur in the King
List.^® Comparing our table, we see that Elulu^s reign immediately precedes
that of En-shakush-Anna(k) in time, as should be expected on the basis of the
synchronism.*^^ There is thus again agreement between the table and outside
evidence.
A-ANNE-PADA~ABOUT UR-NANSHE(k)
Excavations in al-'^Ubaid produced a few short inscriptions of the ruler
A-Anne-pada of Ur. From the orthography of these inscriptions and of a few
others found with them it is possible to date A-Anne-pada fairly exactly in
relation to the rulers of Lagash. Fundamental here is Gadd's thorough study
of the material in Ur Excavations 1 128-37, which calls attention to the fol-
lowing significant points :
а) The A-Anne-pada inscriptions use the verbal infix -s^- instead of -si-.
The change from to -§i- begins with En-temena and ends with Uru-
KA-gina.
б) The A-Anne-pada inscription TO 160 is written on a marble tablet shaped like
a plano-convex brick, which recalls the inscribed bricks of Ur-Nanshe(k) and a
contract of E“Anna(k)-tum written on a brick.
c) Signs constituting a word are still written in arbitrary order; this usage practically
disappears before E-Anna(k)-tum.^
d) The signs on stone most resemble those of Ur-Nanshe(k), but these in turn do not
vary much in the course of his dynasty. The signs on claj’- occupy a position be-
tween those of the Fara tablets and those of the En-temena-Uru-KA-gina tablets,
but seem to resemble the latter more closely.
W. K. Schileiko, Votivi Natpid SumennsMj p. 11, 1. 5, PL III 3, quoted by Unger in
RLA II 309; cf. ibid. p. 490. We do not have access to Schileiko's book.
^2 S. Smith in JRAS, 1932, p. 306.
The identifications were already made by Unger in RLA II 490.
That En-shakush-Anna(k) was king of Uruk, as shown by the King List and supported
by his title (see Poebel, PBS IV 1, p. 153), whereas his father Eluiu, as shown by his title
and by the King List, ruled in Ur, suggests that Eluiu had one of his younger(?) sons (En-
shakush-Anna(k)) ntiade ruler of Uruk when the d 3 ntiasty there came to an end (note that
En-shakush-Anna(k) begins a new dynasty, and cf. p. 162). That the same family would
thus have ruled both in Ur and in Uruk throws light on the history of the following times,
explaining satisfactorily why the kingship of Ur on Balulu^s death passed to Lugal-kinishe-
dudu, the successor of En-shakush-Anna(k) in Uruk.
Sporadic examples of the old usage in texts which otherwise write the signs in their
true order can be found in later times (examples have been collected above on p. 172, n. 8).
This does not, however, detract from the value of that usage as a dating criterion as long as
we judge by the general usage of the text or texts to be dated, not by isolated instances.
Histobical. Value
185
The evidence of these texts Gadd summarizes as follows:
a) gives (probably) before En-temena
5) gives Ur-»Nanslie(k) and E-Anna(k)»tum
c) gives before E-Aiina(k)-tum
d) gives (probably) about Ur-Nanshe(k) but later than the Fara tablets.
He draws the conclusion that ‘%o far, then, as the successive tests have given
tangible results, the agreement is striking, and the date indicated is somewhat
before, but not very long before, the reign of Ur-Nin4 [Ur-Nanshe(k)].” To
a very similar date, somewhat before Ur-Nanshe(k), Landsberger comes in
OLZ XXXIV (1931) 117-26.'^
^5 V. Christian’s treatment of the criteria in ZA n.F. IV (1929) 234 f. is not satisfactory
in method, and his conclusion that the data favor a date within the period from E-Anna(k)"
tum to En~temena cannot be accepted. The diagram in which Christian arranges the cri-
teria tends to obscure their true significance. Thus this diagram gives the tablet form as
indication for the period from En4emena to Uru-XA-gina. In reality, however, the tablet
form in question appears already in the Fara tablets, so that this criterion is compatible
with any date from somewhere before Ur-Nanshe(k) down to Uru-isA-gina. A similar case
is the criterion represented by the shape of the signs on clay. We have only two groups of
texts with which we can compare the A-Anne-pada signs: the Fara tablets and the Uru-KA-
gina tablets. Gadd has shown that the A-Anne-pada signs resemble the signs used in the
En-temena-UrU“KA~gina period more than those used in the Fara tablets. Since we do not
know when in the period which separates the Fara period from the En-temena-Uru-KA-gina
period the sign forms which we find in the latter developed, the fact that the A-Anne-pada
signs resemble the En-temena-Uru-KA-gina signs more than the Fara signs only proves
that A-Anne-pada is later than Fara, i.e., belongs somewhere in the time from after the Fara
period down to the end of the En-temena-XJru-KA-gina period. It is therefore not correct,
as Christian does, to use this criterion as indicating the period from En-temena to Uru-XA-
gina only, for En-temena does not represent an upper limit.
The way in which Christian uses his diagram is likewise open to criticism. The diagram
is arranged chronologically, and each of the various criteria is represented by a vertical black
line. Counting how many such black lines cross the horizontal bands allotted to E-Anna(k)-
tum and En-temena, Christian states: ^'Aus dieser Aufstellung ergibt sich, dass von acht
Kriterien sechs fiir die Periode Entemena’s, fiinf fur die Eannatum’s sprechen, nur eines
scheint eine friihere Zeit zu verlangen.” But this statistical method can never lead to cor-
rect results, for the important thing is to find a period at which ail the criteria overlap or
toward which they approximate in time. Thus if we had an inscription which showed three
orthographic or stylistic peculiarities which lasted down to the time of Ur-Nanshe(k) and then
went out of use, and ten such peculiarities which were known only from documents of the
time of E-Anna(k)-tum and later rulers such as En-temena and Uru-XA-gina, we should
obviously have to conclude that the inscription was written in the period between XJr-Nan-
she(k) and E-Anna(k)-tum, i.e., under A-Kurgal(ak), because only this intermediate period
could have produced an inscription which had both old and new features. It would obviously
be wrong to state that because ten of the criteria ^ ‘spoke for” the period of En-temena, where-
as only three “called for” an earlier date, the inscription should be dated to the time of
En-temena.
Lastly we must mention Christian’s reasons for rejecting as a criterion the transposition
186
The Sumerian King List
This result is undoubtedly correct in all essentials and can be modified only
within narrow limits. There is reason, however, to call attention to a criterion
vrhich Gadd has rejected as insignificant. The A* Amie-pada inscriptions use
suffixes; and, as is well known, suffixes, although common in the inscriptions
of E-Anna(k)4um, do not appear in those of Ur-Nanshe (k). In Gaddis opinion
it is doubtful whether this peculiarity of XJr-Nanshe(k)’s inscriptions is a true
indication of archaism, since ^^no great change in the usage of the language can
be supposed to have taken place within the narrow limits of two generations.’^
He therefore rejects the criterion. In reality, however, the change in question
does not reflect a change in language but is merely a further step in that long
process which brought the system of writing ever nearer to the spoken word.
It is thus merely an orthographic change, which of course would not need so
much time as a change in language. Since Ur and Lagash are situated near
each other and must have had close cultural comiections, we can obviously—
even if we admit that Ur may have been the more progressive — hardly assume
that the improvement would take more than a generation at most to penetrate
to Lagash. Gadd’s dating “somewhat before, but not very long before, the
reign of Ur-Nin^ [Ur-Nanshe(k)]” is therefore better modified to “approxi-
mately the time of Ur-Nanshe(k),” This agrees very well with the places
which the two rulers take in our table, and there is thus once more agreement
between the two groups of evidence.
GILGAMES-AKA
An epic text deals with a war between King Aka of Kish, to whom Uruk
owed allegiance, and Gilgames, who defeated Aka and liberated Uruk (p. 145,
n. 20). We have stated earlier that the material of epics and historical legends
must be fairly old and can hardly postdate by many generations the historical
persons concerned. We can therefore accept the s 3 mchronism here presented.
Comparing it with the table, we see that it agrees perfectly. The reign of Aka
falls within that of Gilgames by several years.
of the signs, the criterion which suggests a date to the time of XJr-Nanshe(k) or earlier:
^'Die Abweichung von der regeimassigen 2eichenfolge, urn die es sich hierbei handelt, findet
sich auf dem Kurlil-Torso, der aus stilkritischen Grunden etwa der Periode En-temena's
zuzuweisen sein dtirfte. Das aus der Inschrift geschopfte Argument, das ein hoheres Alter
zu fordern scheint, wird dadurch wohl hinfaiiig.” Since it can safely be stated, however,
that—with our present limited knowledge of Sumerian statuary — the eziteria of style
which Christian quotes (op. cit. p. 236) are of exceedingly doubtful value as dating evi-
dence, we should only be rejecting a safe criterion in favor of a very unsafe one if we followed
him.
Histoeical Value
187
TYPES' OF Peesonal Names -
To a time somewhat before Ur-Nanshe(k) of Lagash belongs a group of
tablets of economic and administrative character found in Fara.^® These tab-
lets mention a large number of persons and give a good impression of the types
of proper names then in vogue. The next large group of tablets which enables
us to study Sumerian proper names comes from the period of Lugal-anda,
En-e(n)tar-2;i(d), and Uru-KA-gina of Lagash, and the names of this later group
show that considerable changes have taken place: certain names do not occur
any more, elements which were frequent in the Fara period are now no longer
current, etc. We may mention some of these changes
a) In the Fara texts the name Ak (or Aka) is common. Deimel, who has col-
lected the names in these texts, lists seventeen occurrences. This name has dis-
appeared completely in the Uru-KA-gina period.
h) The Fara texts know an element bar, occurring in such names as A b - b a r -
tab, Bar-mes(?)-ra (i.e., Mes-bar-ra), Bar-si - sar, ^Sud-
nu-bar, E-uru-bar, Edin-bar, Ur- bar-da, Ka-bar, LA-
bar-zi-da, and Mes-bar-ra. This element has disappeared in the
names of the Uru-KA-gina period, where we find bar only in the compound
verb igi — bar, “to see.^'
c) Another element which is fairly common in the Fara names is PArGis-nfL or p’'pa 4-
Gis-BiL, read p a4 - g i § - g eio or P^p a4 - g i s - g eio , “sprout of a new tree/'
which occurs in the names Pa4-gi§-geio-d-nu-kfi§ (written gi§-pap-
BiL - d- nu-kus and pap-gi§ - bil - d,-nu-ktis), Pa4-giS-geio-
kalam-duio (written giS-pap-Bfu-kaiam-duio) or p*^Pa 4 -gi§-
geio-kalam-diiio (written p a - g i b i l - p a p - k a 1 a m - d lUo and
pap-gis - BIL - pa-kalam-d uio) j P a4 - g i s - g eio - d Uio (written p a p -
g i s - BIL - d Uio) , Pa 4 -gi§-g eio®^ , and P a4 - g i s - g eio - "^d u g u
(written "^pap-gis-BiL-dugud"^"®®^) . This element also has disappeared
before the Uru-KA-gina period.
d) A very common element of the Fara names is k a 1 a m , which appears in A m a r -
kalam, Gig-la (?)-kalam, En-kalam(?), En-kalam-duio,
En-kalam - x(LAK, No. . 503) , En-nu-kalam-se, En-nin-
kalam, Ur-^-kalam, Kal am , K a 1 a m - d Uio , K a 1 a m « k u - 1 i ,
Kalam- x{LAK, No. 503), L u g a 1 - a - k a 1 a m , N i n - k a 1 a m - ? ,
Sal-en-kalam(?) , and P a 4 - g i § - g eio - k a 1 a m - d Uio or p^P a4 -
gis-geio-kalam-duio (both written as above). In the Uru-KA-gina period
46 Deimel, Die Inschriften von Fara I and III {WVDOG XL and XLV [1922 and 1924]).
On the date of the texts see Vols. I 4-5 and II 1*~2*; Deimel in Orientalia No. 6 (1923) pp.
51-54; Landsberger in OLZ XXXIV (1931) 123.
47 The changes were determined through a comparison of the proper names from the
Fara tablets listed by Deimel, Die Inschriften von Fara III 18 *-48*, with the onomastic
material contained in the texts from the En-temena-Uru-KA-gina period which Deimel has
transliterated in various numbers of Orientalia from No. 14 to No. 44.
188
The Sumerian King List
this element is so rare that we can quote only two examples, En-kalam(?)*.
ma(?) and Mu-ni-kalam-ma ,
e) Several Fara names contain the element men: Men-U4~gld, Men-
ii4-..-du, Men-pa-^, Men-mu, and Lugal-men, In the Uru-
KA-gina period this element is limited to the stereotyped connection men-
z i - d i m4 and appears outside it only once: M e n - e n - 1 u .
/) The element mes is extremely frequent in the Fara texts* Deimel lists twenty-
two diJfferent names beginning with this element. In the Uru-KA-gina period it
has practically disappeared and is known to the writer from a single name only,
Mes-zi,
g) As frequent as mes is the element nun. Deimel lists about fifty names in
which it occurs. In the Uru-KA-gina period it has disappeared and is found only
in names composed with old names of deities or buildings, such as "^fis-nun,
fi-ka-nun-di, G 4 -nun, Gfr-nun, and Ir-nun.
Comparing the rulers’ names which appear in the King List, we observe
that several of the earlier names in the traditions of Kish, Uruk, and Ur are
composed with the elements which we have here mentioned, elements which
were common in the Fara period but had disappeared already in the time of
Uru-KA-gina. This observation is of considerable interest. It shows first that
we actually have genuine and old tradition in the King List, for such names
naturally could not have been invented in late periods. Secondly it gives us a
means of testing the validity of our table. We have seen that the elements
mentioned flourished in the Fara period, that is, shortly before Ur-Nanshe(k),
and died out in the time of Uru-KA-gina. If our arrangement of the various
traditions is correct, we should expect to find that names with such elements
would occur in our table rather frequently in the period just before Ur-Nan-
she(k), would then become scarce, and would finally disappear before we get
down to Uru-KA-gina.
This is indeed exactly what we do find in the table. In the period before
Ur-Nanshe(k) the table has En-men-nun-na, Bar-sal-nun-
na, En-men-bara-ge-si, As-ka, Mes-ki-ag-ga-se-er,
Gis-bil-ga-mes,^^ Utul-kalam-ma, En-nun-dara-
GiS-BfL-GA, the first element of the name Gilgames (written ^gis-bIl-ga-mes, <*gis-
Biir-Gfisr-MES, etc.,* SCO p. 89, n. 128), cannot, of course, be separated from the element p^^p a 4 -
Gis-Bfir-GA, P®p a 4 -Gis-BfL, Or p a 4 -Gis-BfL of the Fara names but must represent an ab-
breviated form of it. The meaning of this element is reasonably clear. P a 4 (Ar, older
and perhaps ^ [LAKj Nos. 229 and 42]) is the picture of a sprouting seed of grain <±>,
as shown by the value b u 1 u g or d i m 4 , '^rnalt,^^ i.e., sprouting grain, which the sign
has when it is repeated: Ar Ar* This idea, “sprouting seed,^^ obviously underlies the value
pap, “father” (j§L, No. 60.2); the father is called “sprouting seed'' as the germ from
which a family springs up. The idea is still more clearly expressed in p a -gis-bIl-ga,
“forefather” (En-temena Cone p. 38] i 35; SL^ No. 295.131, has incorrectly bil),
also abbreviated as pa-BfL-GA:G6 ahi: “grandfather,” “forefather” (SL, No. 295.109),
Historical Value
189
a n - n a , and M e s « a n - n 6 - p & - d a . Then, however, such names grow
scarce; in the generation which follows Ur"Nanshe(k) we find only two,
Gi.+&UB-ntin-na and M e s - ki- a g“ n n n - n a After that time
there is not a single name which is composed with any of these elements.
Once again we have found our table to be in agreement with other chronologi-
cal evidence.^®
The test has thus on all points confirmed our previous results. We have
compared the material of the King List with that of historical inscriptions
and found that there is only one case in which the King List seems to have
missed a ruler whom we should expect to find in it, and this one case may be a
simple omission in the course of tradition. We have singled out and correlated
p a-bi a-hi (SLj No. 60.54), etc., which must represent p a - g i s - g eio - (a) k -
a (m) , ^Vho was (-am) the germ (pa) of (-ak) anew (geio) tree (g is). "The
ancestor is considered as the germ, the acorn, from which the ‘Tamiiy tree" has grown.
That this explanation is correct is also shown by the early names themselves, for we have
the parallels pa 4 -gi§“geio-^-nu-kfis: a-nu-kfis(< a-d-nu-kti§) and
pa4-gi§-geio“kalam-duio : a-kalam-duio, in which p a 4 -gis- geio ,
^^germ," ^)(f ore) father," varies with a, which also means /^erm" (lit., ‘^semen virile")
and “father." The name Gilgames should thus in its full form have been p a 4 - g i § -
g eio*^ - m e s , “man (m e s) who is germ of a new tree," i.e., “a man who is to become
originator of a family."
One further point concerning the Fara names should be mentioned here, although it
means anticipating the results of our next chapter, which shows how the above synchronistic
list is related to absolute chronology. In Zeitschrift fur dgyptische Sprache und AUeriums-
kunde LXXI (1935) 89-106 Scharff has discussed a series of finds from Egypt which give
evidence of early relations between that country and Mesopotamia. The series in question
can be dated on the Egyptian side to the end of the predynastic period; it stops around the
time of Menes {ibid. p. 93, n. 1). According to Egyptian chronology that would be in the
centuries just before 3000 b.c. (Meyer, Die dltere Chronologic . , pp. 68 f., puts the ac-
cession of Menes at 3197 with margin of 100 to 200 years; Scharff, op. ait. p. 90, n. 3, favors
a lower date, shortly before 3000: “Nach meiner tJberzeugung liegt nach wie vor keinerlei
Anlass dazu vor, mit Menes wesentlich fiber 3000 hinaufzugehen").
On the Mesopotamian side the affinities of the series extend from the final phase of the
Uruk period through Jamdat Na§r down to Early Dynastic II, the latest parallels being
with the seal impressions from Fara which date from that period (Scharff , op. cit. pp. 102 f . ;
Frankfort, Progress of the Work of the Oriental Institute in Iraqj 19S4/35 [OIC No. 20 (1936)]
p. 42 and Chronological Table). Now the approximate time when Early Dynastic II ended
can be fixed by means of our King List; for the tablets with the characteristic Fara names
discussed above belong to the immediately following period, Early Dynastic III (ibid.
Chronological Table), and in the King List these names begin to appear with En-me(n)-
nunna. Early Dynastic II should thus have ended slightly before En-me(n)“nunna; and
this ruler reigned, as shown by the Eang List correlated with absolute chronology (see Table
II), around 3050 b.c. There is thus a very noticeable agreement between Egyptian chronol-
ogy, which places the end of the interrelations in the centuries immediately before 3000 b.c.,
and our Mesopotamian chronology, which places the end of those interrelations in the period
which ended ca. 3050 b.c.
190
The SumeriaN: KinG' List
the individual sources in the King List on the basis of a single set of synchro-
nisms. Comparing the resulting table with other synchronisms
Gilgames-Aka
A-Anne-pada-about XJr-Nanshe(k)
En-shakush-Anna (k)“Elulu
En-shakush-Anna{k)-"Enbi-Eshtar
En-temena-Lugal-kinishe-dudu
we saw that in the table the rulers in question were actually placed correctly;
Lastly, we have shown that a number of royal names appearing in the table
are composed with elements which were current in the Fara period but died
out before the time of Uru-KA-gina, Noting the distribution of these names
in the table, we saw that, as should be expected if the table is correct, they
center around the time before Ur-Nanshe(k), then grow scarce, and disappear
completely before we get down to the period around Uru-KA-gina.
VI
RESULTING CHRONOLOGY
It remains to tie in the reconstruction and correlation of the King List with
the data of absolute chronology. To that end we must examine briefly extant
possibilities of finding reliable fixed points of absolute chronology in older
Mesopotamian history, and we must consider the sections of the King List
and of additions to it which link the main body of its evidence with such
fixed points.
RELEVANT FIXED POINTS OF ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY^
Reckoning FROM Late CHBOxoLOGiCAii Lists
The general trend of recent years has been to choose as basis the thoroughly
established dates of late Assyrian times and to reckon back from them toward
the period of Hammurabi by means of Ass3rrian and Babylonian king lists,
supplementing their data with such occasional chronological evidence as can
be found in other historical texts. The material falls into two large groups,
Assyrian and Babylonian, which we may discuss separately.^
The Assyrian material consists in the main of king lists of various types,
Kmmi^-lists, and chronological statements in historical inscriptions. Synchro-
^ From the extensive literature bearing on these problems we may quote F. X. Kiigler,
Sternkunde und Stemdienst in Babel II 2 (Munster in Westf., 1912); Weidner, Shidien zur
msyrisch-'hahylonischen Chronologie und Geschichie auf Grund neuer Funds {MV AG XX 4
[for 1915; 1917]) and Bie Konige von Assyrien; neue chronologische Dokumente aus Assur
{MVAG XXVI 2 [1921]); Kugler, Von Moses bis Paulus (Munster in Westf., 1922); S. A.
Cook in Cambridge Ancient History I (1923; 2d ed., 1924; reprinted, 1928) 145-56; C. Schoch,
Ammizaduga (Berlin-Steglitz, 1925) ; P. Schnabel, ^^Zur astronomischen Fixierung der aitba-
bylonischen Chronologie mittels der Venustafeln der Ammizaduga-Zeit,'^ ZA n.F. II (1925)
109-22; Meyer, Bie alter e Chronologie BabylonienSj Assyriens und Agyptens (1925; 2d ed.,
1931); Weidner, '^Die grosse Konigsliste aus Assur, AOF III (1926) 66-77; Thureau-Dan-
gin, 'Ta chronologie des trois premieres dynasties babyloniennes,” RA XXIV (1927) 181-98;
Schoch, Bie Ur->Finstemis {eine Hypothese!) (Berlin, 1927) ; vS. Langdon, J. K. Fothering-
ham, and C. Schoch, The Venm Tablets of Ammizaduga (London, 1928); P. V. Neuge-
bauer, ^^Zur Frage der astronomischen Fixierung der babylonischen Chronologie,'^ OLZ
XXXII (1929) 913-21.
2 The following short discussion naturally does not pretend to treat exhaustively the
numerous and knotty problems in which the late chronological material abounds. It merely
intends to blaze a single trail through the jungle: to determine by applying the principles
of source criticism which of our sources must be considered most reliable and to build on them
only.
191
192
Thb Sumerian King List
nisms found in historical inscriptions, chronicles, S3nichronistic lists, etc. offer
possibilities of connecting these data with data from the lists of Babylonian
rulers. In judging the value of this material, we must consider first the basis
of Assyrian chronology, the Kmmu system. Assyrian chronology, as is well
known, w^as based on eponym lists in which each year was represented by the
name of the person officiating as eponym for that year.® It is obvious from
this that records going back for several centuries, containing many hundreds
of names, must have been fairly bulky and must have occupied a considerable
number of tablets. For that reason we can be sure that on the whole relatively
few copies of the complete eponym list existed and that damage to the records
—especially prone to happen in view of their bulk— would be difficult to repair
for want of duplicates. With fairly bulky records, likely to be damaged, and
with few duplicates to fill in the lacunas which arose, Assyrian records should
show a gradual shrinking of figures as in the course of time the few standard
sources became more and more defective and more and more eponym names
disappeared in lacunas. This is indeed what we actually find. Our oldest chron-
ological source is a statement in an inscription of Shalmaneser I.^ According
to this, Shamshi-Adad I had rebuilt the Ashur temple 580 years before Shal-
maneser himself, and a still older ruler, Erishum, had rebuilt it 159 years be-
fore Shamshi-Adad. Already under Shalmaneser’s son and successor, however,
we find somewhat lower figures: Tukulti-Ninurta I reckons for the larger
span of time from Ilu-shuma, father of Erishum, down to his own time only
720 years.® Still later, under Esarhaddon, the distance from Erishum to
Shamshi-Adad has shrunk from the 159 years given by Shalmaneser to only
126 years, and similarly the 580 years between Shamshi-Adad and Shalmaneser
have become only 434, a total loss of 179 years.® The source which the Assyrian
kings consulted for such information, the standard copy or copies of the
eponym list, had clearly become steadily more damaged as time went on, so
that the scribes of Esarhaddon found far fewer Zmmzi-names preserved than
did the earlier scribes of Shalmaneser I. Their additions therefore gave very
much lower figures. Since we cannot assume that it was only with Shalmaneser
I that the gradual deterioration of the older parts of the eponym list here
reflected began, it is probable that the figures which he gives are already on
the short side.
If we must thus suspect our oldest evidence, we should obviously approach
® See e.g. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums 1 2 (3. Aufl.; Stuttgart und Berlin, 1913) § 324;
Cook, op. cii. pp. 148 f.
No. 13m32iT.
5 KAE II, Nos. 48 and 59. e XAH I, No. 51, and 11, No. 126.
Resulting Chronology
193
that of the king lists, which would draw from the same source at still later
stages, with even more caution. For our purpose this means that we cannot
hope to fix the dates of old dynasties such as that of Hammurabi by reckoning
back on the evidence of the Assyrian king lists to the Assyrian side of syn-
chronisms for the older period such as Ilu-shtima-Sumu-abum, Erishum~Su-
mu-la-El, or Shamshi-Adad-Hammurabi. We must realize that we can rely
on the figures of these Assyrian lists in their later part only, approximately
from Ashur-uballit downward, where the shrinking should be less pronounced
and where synchronisms with Egyptian chronology give us some means of
checking the figures.®''
Turning to the Babylonian material, we find it to consist — much as does the
Assyrian — of king lists, to wit the famous Babylonian King List A,^and of oc-
casional chronological information given by historical or similar inscriptions.
King List A is a relatively late source; it lists Kandalanu and possibly had
still later rulers. Of importance in judging its value as a source is the fact that
Babylonian chronology was based on the regnal years of the kings. Records —
even those going back for centuries— would thus be compact, and it would not
be too great a task to copy them. We can therefore assume that more copies
of the standard Babylonian chronology were about than was the case with the
Assyrian, so that lacunas could comparatively easily be filled in from dupli-
cates. The evidence of the Babylonian king list will therefore inspire some-
what more confidence than that of the Assyrian. We should not forget, how-
ever, that the list is a late document and that we have no other copies to check
its text. In the long period of tradition from Hammurabi to Kandaltou or
later many scribal errors in figures and totals may have crept in, and we have
few means of detecting them.
Among the material from inscriptions we should mention the information
given on a boundary stone from the fourth year of Enlil-nadin-apli^ that 694
years had passed from Gulkishar of the Sea Land to Nebuchadnezzar I. As
our earliest Babylonian source this passage must rank comparatively high, A
this reason we have little confidence in the recent tendency to explain the syn-
chronism Shamshi-Adad I-Hammurabi by pulling Hammurabi down to the date assigned
to Shamshi-Adad on the basis of the Assyrian king lists (cf. e.g. Albright in American Schools
of Oriental Research, Bulletin No. 69 [1938] pp. 18 ff.). Reasons for doubting the com-
pleteness of the older parts of the Assyrian king lists have also been expressed by Lewy in
ZA n.F. IV (1929) 95-105. We do not agree with all of his conclusions, but see esp. pp.
104 f. and his correct observations on the variant figures of Esarhaddon's scribes as inten-
tional corrections of Shalmaneser's figures {jMd. pp. 102 f.).
7 OT XXXVI (1921) Pis. 24^25.
8 RE I 1 (1893) Pis. 30-31, No. 83.
194
The Stjmebian King List
number of references from late times in inscriptions of Nabonidus need not be
specially discussed, since their unreliable character is generally recognized.
Our survey has thus shown that, while the Assyrian material is of rather
doubtful value and should be used only for the later periods, the Babylonian
material inspires somewhat more confidence, although here also we must
reckon with possible errors in figures and totals. Foremost among the Baby-
lonian material ranks the information given by the boundary stone, next the
evidence of King List A. To get the most reliable basis for our computation
we should therefore use the material in the following order of preference:
boundary stone, King List A, Assyrian material.
The information on the boundary stone reaches down to Nebuchadnezzar I
only. To get connection with the established dating of later times our second
best source, King List A, is of no help, since it is too broken to give a con-
tinuous series. Even the name of Nebuchadnezzar himself is lost. We must
accordingly use the Assyrian lists, which for this part, after Ashur-uballit,
must be considered relatively reliable. According to the text VAT 10281® the
Assyrian king Ashur-resh-isht I fought with Ninurta-nadin-shumati of Baby-
lon, and according to the Synchronistic History^® Ashur-r^sh-isht also fought
with the successor of Ninurta-nadin-shumati, Nebuchadnezzar I, He was, ac-
cording to the synchronistic lists KAV, No. 12, and Assur 14616c, even con-
temporaneous with the successor of Nebuchadnezzar, Enlil-nadin-apli. Ashur-
r^sh-ishi reigned 18 years; Nebuchadnezzar, as shown by a boundary stone
dated to his 16th year, IG+^r years.^^ Since we must allow one or two years
at the beginning of Ashur-resh-ishf s reign for his war with Ninurta-nadin-
shumati, the 16 years which represent the minimum for Nebuchadnezzar^s
reign will take us down to around the last year of Ashur-resh-ishi. It therefore
seems likely that the death of Nebuchadnezzar, the accession of Enlil-nadin-
apli, and the death of Ashur-r^sh-isht all happened in the same year. Assyrian
king lists show^ that the last year of Ashur-r^sh-ishi was lllSd^ Adding to this
» Weidner in AOF IV (1927) 213-17.
CT XXXIV (1914) PL 39 : 2-13, « AOF IV 70 f .
12 Hinke, Selected Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions (“Semitic Study Series^’ XIV
[Leiden, 1911]) pp, 21-27 v 26.
Tliis statement rests in part on information from the Khorsabad king list, which Prof.
Poebei is preparing for publication. We are indebted to him for permission to quote this
material as basis for the date of Ashur-r6sh-isM. We may mention that this date agrees
with the so-called “Bavian date,’' which has long been considered a cornerstone for Assyrian
chronology. Sennacherib states (III R 14:48-50) that when he had conquered Babylon he
brought back “after 418 years” the statues of Adad and Shala of the city Ekallate which
Marduk-nadin-ahe had taken to Babylon in the time of Tiglathpiieser. It is uncertain to
what point Sennacherib’s scribes counted back. Contrary to what is generally taken for
Resulting Chronology
195
the 694 years of the boundary stone, we get 1807 as the last year of GulMshar.
Using then the figures for Gulkishar and his predecessors given in King List A
(55+24+ 16+56+60 “211), we arrive at 2017 as the first year of Iluma-ilum.
Now we know that Iluma-ilum was contemporaneous with Samsu-iluna and
Abi-Eshuh of the 1st d 3 Tiasty of Babylon.^^ His rebellion against Samsu-iluna
is in all probability referred to in the formula for the 10th year of that ruler:
^^Year: 'He . . . ,ed the hosts of Idamaraz, Yamutbal, Uruk, and Isin' but
the occasion for it would seem to have been the Cassite invasion referred to in
the formula for the preceding year, the 9th. Since the date formulas presum-
ably are a year behind the events to which they refer, we should place the Cass-
ite invasion and the beginning of Iluma-ilum’s rebellion in Samsu-iluna's 8th
year.^® With Samsu-iluna^s 8th year as 2017 his 1st year becomes 2024, and
the 43-year reign of his father, Hammurabi, who preceded him, can thus be
dated to 2067-2025 b.c.
granted, we consider it highly unlikely that they possessed information as to the exact year
in which these statues were taken. More probably they were working from king lists and
counted to a figure given there, e.g. the beginning of Marduk-nadin-ahe’s reign. Four hun-
dred and eighteen years before Sennacherib^s capture of Babylon gives 1107 b.c. According
to the king lists Tiglathpileser, the successor of Ashur-r^sh-ishl, began to reign in 1112, and
the date thus falls, as it should, within his reign. As we have shown above, Nebuchadnezzar I
probably died around 1113. His successor, Enlil-nadin-apli, reigned 4+a; years (BE I 1,
Pis. 30-31, No. 83), i.e., to 1109 or later. Thus 1107 can very well represent the beginning
of the reign of his successor, Marduk-nadin-ahe.
King, Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings II 18-21.
Of importance for the correlation of the reigns of Samsu-iluna and Iluma-iliim are also
tablets from Nippur dated in Iluma-ilum^s 2d year (Poebel, BE VI 2 , No. 68, and in ZA XX
[1907] 241; Chiera, PBS VIII 1, No. 89). The persons mentioned on these tablets recur on
other documents ranging in time from the 33d year of Hammurabi to the 18th year of
Samsu-iluna (see Poebel in ZA XX 241 and Chiera, op. cit, p. 66). The year in which lluma-
ilum — as shown by these tablets — held Nippur must therefore be sought within this period.
Now the dates on the Nippur tablets published in BE VI 2 and PBS VIII 1-2 show that
Nippur must have been in Samsu-iluna's possession from his 1st to his 8th, from his 10th
to his 15th, and from his 17th to his 23d year; for tablets dated to these years have been
found in Nippur. As years for which tablets with his dates are missing and in which the city
can therefore have been out of his possession there are thus only his 9th and his 16th years.
In his 16th year, however, Samsu-iluna was occupied with restoring fortresses in Emutbal
(formula for 17th year) south of Nippur, so there can be no question that he then held that
city, and the fact that no Nippur tablet with his formula for that year has been found must
thus be accidental. This leaves only the 9th year as a year in which Nippur can have be-
longed to another ruler, and we must accordingly date the Iluma-ilum tablets to that year.
Since these tablets belong to the 2d year of Iluma-ilum, his rebellion would thus have begun
in the 8th year of Samsu-iluna.
This result is strongly supported by the historical evidence contained in Samsu-iluna^s
date formulas. In Samsu-iluna^s 8th year occurred the Cassite invasion (date formula for
9th year), which furnished an opportunity for a rebellion in the south: Iluma-ilum's 1st
196
The Sumeeian Kmo List
Astronomical Dating of the Hammurabi Dynasty
AND OF THE ThIRD DYNASTY OF Ur
A totally different approach is represented by efforts to fix by astronomical
computation the absolute dates of astronomical observations dated according
to the Old Babylonian calendar. Foremost among these stand the Venus tab-
lets of Ammi-§aduqa, the importance of which for ancient Babylonian chronol-
ogy was recognized by Kugler in 1912. The history of the problem which
these tablets present is too well known to call for much comment. We need
only state that repeated tests and improvements of Kugler’s results coupled
with new discoveries make it clear that the observations in question furnish a
series of possible datings only. In choosing among these, the best criterion is
dated Babylonian contracts dealing with delivery of dates by date-growers.
The days of delivery stipulated in these contracts will fall differently according
to which of the above-mentioned possibilities is chosen; and, since we must
assume that the deliveries would follow soon after the harvest, that possibility
which will make them fall most nearly in the time just after date harvest,
ending in the middle of October, has obviously the best chance of being correct.
As shown by Fotheringham,^® the possibility which gives the best results is the
one which places the reign of Hammurabi from 2067 to 2025, and that dating
has now been accepted as the most satisfactory by the majority of the scholars
who have worked on the problem.^^ It wiE be noted how well this astronomical
date agrees with the one at which we arrived after a critical sifting of the chron-
ological sources, using for reckoning only those which could be considered the
most reliable.
The Venus tablets of Amml-Saduqa are not the only ancient observations
year. In the next year, Samsu-iluna’s 9th, this rebellion must have spread to Nippur, for
in the rebel confederation which met Samsu-iluna that year was Isin, just south of Nippur
(date formula for 10th year). This agrees therefore with the occurrence of Iluma-ilum tab-
lets in Nippur that year. In the encounter just mentioned Samsu-iluna was victorious, and
in his next (10th) year he was beleaguering Uruk and Ur, destroying their walls (formula for
11th year) — a situation which presupposes that Nippur farther north was already securely
in his hands. This fits with the fact that Nippur, as shown by tablets, now again dated by
Samsu-iluna formulas. On the correlation of Iluma-ilum and Samsu-iluna see also Schnabel,
Die habylonische Chronologie in Berossos\ Bahyloniaka (MV AG XIII 5 [Berlin, 1908]) pp.
19 f. Schnabel wrote before Nippur tablets dated to the 10th year of Samsu-iluna had
been published and therefore considered both the 9th and 10th years Iluma-ilum years, so
that his synchronism comes out one year too low.
Langdon, Fotheringham, and Schoch, op. cit. pp. 69 ff. Neugebauer's objections to
this criterion {OLZ XXXII 918 f.) seem too theoretical and general in character to carry
weight.
Besides Fotheringham, also Schoch, Langdon, and Schnabel (ZA n.F. II 109-22) ac-
cept this date.
Resulting Cheonology 197
which afford a possibility of establishing an absolute date in older Mesopota-
mian history by means of astronomical reckoning. On the basis of observations
of a lunar eclipse foreboding the fall of I(b)bi-S{n and the end of the 3d dynasty
of Ur, Schoch has calculated that this omen occurred on the night of February
17/18 (Gregorian), 2283 B.cd® Now it is a highly important fact indeed that
the two mutually independent astronomical dates, Fotheringham^s for the 8th
year of Amml-Saduqa, which places Hammurabi at 2067-2025 b.c., and
Schoch’s for the omen foreboding the fall of Ur III, 2283 b.c., give just the
span of time between these two events which from our chronological lists can
be seen to have separated them. Langdon has commented briefly on this fact
but the revised text of the additions to the Sumerian King List established
above (pp. 122-27) and a reconsideration of the correlation of Ur III, Isin,
Larsa, and Babylon I makes it possible to state the argument with greater pre-
cision than be has done.
The correlation of the dynasty of Larsa with the 1st dynasty of Babylon has
been safely established by Thureau-Dangin.^® According to the date formula
for the 31st year of Hammurabi, which refers to his capture of Rim-Sin of
Larsa, that event can be placed in the 30th year of Hammurabi, that is, in
2038 B.c. according to Fotheringham^s chronology. A list from Larsa giving
14 years for Hammurabi again shows that Larsa must have come into his pos-
session in his 30th year, for Hammurabi reigned 43 years in alL^^ As for the
Schoch, Die Ur-Finsternis (eine Rypothese!) ; cf. Langdon in Langdon, Fotheringham,
and Schoch, op. cit. p. 82; Neugebauer in Adronomische Ckronologie I (1929) 96. Schoch
added ^'eine Hypothese’^ because he found difficulties in correlating this date with the one
found by Fotheringham for the Hammurabi dynasty. These difficulties disappear, however,
on closer examination of the chronological lists at our disposal and of the correlation of
the dynasties involved.
Langdon, Fotheringham, and Schoch, op. cit. p. S2.
La chronologie des dynasties de Sumer et d’Aceadj pp. 40-42.
Additional evidence is offered by the fact that the date formula for the 30th year of
Hammurabi actually seems to be the earliest date formula of that ruler found in Larsa and
also by a date list found in Larsa ( YOS I, No. 33) which begins with this year (see Thureau-
Dangin, op. cit. p. 42). We should also mention a tablet with double dating published by
Langdon (RA XXVII [1930] 23-25). This tablet gives the year in which it was written as
both the 8th and the 10th year after Isin was captured. On the correlation assumed, the
8th year of Rtm-Stn’s Isin era corresponds to the 10th year of an Isin era counted from the
Babylonian conquest of the city under Stn-muballit. That our tablet actually dated from
this year and that its figures 8 and 10 refer to Larsan and Babylonian Isin eras respectively
is especially probable since the year in question is just that in which Hammurabi brought
Isin back under Babylonian rule. A revival of the Babylonian Isin era in that year is there-
fore very understandable. (Langdon^s solution, which assumes that the figure 8 refers to
the 8th year of Hammurabi, seems to us less probable, especially as we have no other evi-
dence of dating by regnal years from this period.)
198
The Sumerian King List
reign of Rim-Sin, a sliglit discrepancy exists between the tablet Just mentioned,
which gives him 61 years, and a large prism with Larsan date formulas, which
sums up his date formulas as only 60. This discrepancy is naturally explained
on the assumption that the scribe who wrote the tablet counted Rim-Sin's
formula for the year in which Hammurabi took the city, 2038 b.c., which
would have both a Rim-Sin and a Hammurabi formula, whereas the scribe
who wrote the prism did not.-^ Rim-Sin's reign of 61 years thus comprises the
years from 2098 to 2038 b.c. inclusive; and, since the dynasty lasted 263 years,
its first year, the one in which Naplanum made himself independent in Larsa,
becomes 2300 b.c.
To correlate the dynasty of Isin with those of Larsa and Babylon we must
determine when in the date formulas of these dynasties the fall of the Isin dy-
nasty is recorded. In the period which can come into consideration Isin is re-
ferred to four times, and the earliest reference recording the capture of the city
by a foreign power presumably gives us the date when the independent dynasty
of Isin came to an end. The four references are:
Rim-Sin year 25 (=Sin-muballit year 14)
Sin-muballit year 17 (== Rim-Sin year 28)
Rim-Sin year 30 (=Sin-muballit year 19)
Hammurabi year 7 (= Rim-Sin year 38).
Now the first of these references, that from the 25th year of Rim-Sin, can
hardly, as is generally assumed, refer to a capture of Isin. The formula^® reads:
[mu 4-m]ah an <^en-lil ^^en-ki-ga-ta uru^' dam-qf-fi'’-ll-
su d-dam zag su-dib-bi i-si-in^^-ka sipa zi <^[ri-i]m-
i n(EN-zu) in-dib-ba [§ir-§]ir-ra Lu[-j-KAE- a] 1 a r s a^^ - m a - § 5
bf-in-tu-re hu'^ - ul-a-ta h-ma-a-ni mu-un-gub-ba
“Year when by the exalted power of An, Enlil, and Enki the city (called) Damqi-
ilishu, (namely) crowds from the conquered border district of Isin,^^ which the true
shepherd Rim-Sin had seized, he (i.e., Rim-Sin) brought into Larsa in chains and
captive and established his victory forever.'^^s
28 Thus also Ungnad in ZDMG LXXIV (1920) 424 and in RLA II 155.
83 Thureau-Dangin, op. ait. p. 65, AO 7025 obv. iii 47-51.
8^1.6., adam zag su-dibb-a Isin-(a)k-a(k). We assume that the neigh-
boring i^B of d i b b and Isin changed the -a of dibb-a into - e .
85 Thureau-Dangin translates: “[annde oil, avec la force sujblime d’Anu, Enlil et Enki, le
pasteur legitime [Eilm-Sin prit la Ville de Damiq-iiisu,’ la foule (devS habitants)
dTsin, transf^ra h Larsa . . . . [ . . . . ] , 4tablit pour toujours sa puissance victorieuse/^
Ungnad in RLA II 163, No. 227, translates: “Mit der hohen Kraft Anus, Enlils und Enkis
eroberte der wahre Hirt Blm-Sin die Stadt des Damqi-iliSu und die vdllig(?) eingeschlos-
sene(?) Einwohnerschaft von Isin, brachte . . . ..... nach Larsa und errichtete fur aile
Zeit seinen Triumph.^' A serious obiection to these translations — apart from the fact that
Eesuming Cheonology 199
Here, as will be seen, only a minor victory is reported, a capture of the popula-
tion of a city in the border district of Isin, not the capture of the capital itself.-®
As the first actual capture of Isin itself we must therefore consider only the
second of the references listed, that of the 17th year of Sm-muballit, v/hich
reads:
mu i-si-in-na^b in-dib-ba
“Year when he (i.e., Sin-muballit) took Isin/^
Since in general a date formula may be assumed to refer to an event of the
preceding year, this capture of Isin should have taken place in Sln-muballit’s
16th year, that is, in 2072 b.c. according to Fotheringham's chronology, and
here we may therefore place the end of the independent dimasty of Isin.
The duration of the dynasty of Isin was 226 years, as we have seen above
(pp. 124-27 and notes). Since 2072 b.c. was the last year of the dynasty, we get
2297 B.c. as its first year, the year in which Ishbi-Irra set himself up as inde-
pendent ruler in Isin according to Fotheringham’s dating.
Now according to Schoch's computation, the eclipse which heralded the fall
of I(b)bi-Sin took place in the night between the 17th and 18th of February,
2283 B.C., and, since the Babylonian New Year fell toward the end of March,
I(b)bi-Sin’s last year was thus 2284/83 b.c. Inasmuch as I(b)bi-Sin^s reign
lasted 25 years, the rebellions of Naplanum and Ishbi-Irra should thus, if both
Fotheringham^s and Schoch’s datings are correct, have taken place in his 9th
and 12th years respectively ; that is, his kingdom began to break up in his
9th year.
This, however, is exactly the year which other evidence indicates as the
fateful year of his rule. From the well known letter of I(b)bi-Sin^'^ we know
that during the later part of his reign he ruled only the city-state of Ur and was
contemporaneous with Ishbt-Irra of Isin. The event which caused his authority
over all Babylonia to crumble was apparently connected with a campaign
they do not account satisfactorily for z a g s u- d i b - b i — ^is the casual way in which
Isin would be mentioned: ^^the city of Damiq-ilishu.^’ That this is not a natiiral way of
referring to that important and time-honored capital shows up very distinctly by compari-
son with the formula in which Etm-Stn actually does relate its capture (30th year) : ^ Year
when with the exalted weapons of An, Enlil, and Enki the true shepherd ELlm-Sin seized
Isin, the city of hingshi'p, and its population, as many as there were, granted pardon to its
widespread people, and had its royal name appear forever^^ (i.e., allowed it to retain its
status as royal city). To refer to such a city merely as “the city of Damiq-ilishu” would
minimize the importance of the victory.
2® That the city in question is not Isin is also held by George Tyler Moljmeux in JSOR
IV (1920) 87-90.
27 PBS XIII, No. 3; Barton, Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions, No. 9.
200
The Sumerian King List
against Anshan, for in the text BE XXXI, No. 3, we hear first about the divine
decision to bring evil times on the land, then, after a lacuna, about an expedi-
tion of I(b)bi-S}n to Anshan, and immediately afterward about the calanlity
of Sumer. This evidence is supported by a date list dealing with part of
I(b)bt-Sin's reign, for there the date formulas after the first, which tells of the
campaign against Anshan, suddenly have no more political references but
deal only with religious events centered around the cult in Ur itself. It is there-
fore obvious that I(b)bi-Sin suffered a severe setback in the year when the
campaign to Anshan took place. Now we can form a fair idea of where in his
reign this event should be placed, for it is obvious that those of his date formu-
las which have been found on tablets from Nippur or other northern sites in
Babylonia must belong to the early part of his reign when he ruled the whole
country, and the same is true of formulas which by their content show that
they are the formulas of an important king, not just a petty king ruling merely
the territory around Ur. On the other hand, formulas which deal only with re-
ligious events, centered around the cult in Ur, and have been found only in
Ur but not in other parts of the country are likely to belong to the later part
of his reign.
Now we find that there are only ten formulas which from the place where
they were found or from internal evidence show that they belong to I(b)bi-Sin^s
early years, namely
(1) mu "^i - b 1 - 1 n(EN-2:u) lugal-^m
^Tear: l(b)M-Sin became king.^ ''
(2) mu en ^inanna unu^^-ga mds-e i-pa
^Tear: The enu of Inanna(k) of Uruk was envisaged on the (entrails of the
omen-)kid.' ”
(3) m u - b f - 1 n(EN-zu) lugal urf^^-ma-ke 4 si-mu-ru-u m^'
mu-hul
“Year: l(b)bi-Sin, king of Ur, sacked Simurum.’
(4) mu en-ain-gal-an-na en "^inanna ba-hdn
“Year: ^En-am-gal--Anna(k), the enu of Inanna(k), was invested.^
28 UET I, No. 292; cf. No. 290.
2® The known formulas of I(b)bi“Stn^s reign are listed by Schneider in An. Or. XIII
(1936) 36-39. The first six of the formulas here quoted have been found in Nippur. The
remaining four prove by their content that when they were written I(b)bt-Sin was a king
of considerable power and influence. In our list parentheses are used with the year num-
bers of formulas the chronological position of which is fixed by date lists or similar evidence.
Brackets are used for those the order of which is hypothetical. The place of No. [10] as the
last of the early formulas is assured by the change to formulas referring only to local
. events in UET I, No. 292.
Resultin<5 Chronology
201
(5) mu tu-ki-iii"batta-mi-.ig-ri-sa DUMU-SAL lugal ensi za-
ab - sa- 1 -ke4 ba-an-tuk
''Year: 'The eiisi(k) of Zabshali married TuMn-batti-migrishaj the
daughter of the king.’
|6] mu b^d-gal nipru^^ uri^^-ma ba-dti-a
"Year when the great walls of Nippur and Ur were built,”
[7] m u ^i - b f - i n(EN-zu) lugal uri^^^-ma-ka '^en-lfl-le [me-
l^m-a-ni] kur-kur-ra bi-in -§udun
"Year: 'Enlil put the terrible splendor of I(b)bi-S!n, king of TJr, as a yoke on
aUlands.’”
[8] m u ^i - b f - '^s i n(EN-zu) lugal u r - m a - r a mar-tu id-im-QxVL
ul-ta uru^^ nu-zu gii im-ma-na-an-'g£-ar
"Year: 'To I(b)bi-Sin, king of Ur, did Amurru, a . . . . which from of old knew
not cities, make obeisance.’ ”
[9] mu ^i - b f - ^s i n(EN-zu) lugal uri^*-ma-ke 4 §u§an^' a-dam-
d u n^^ ma-da a-wa-an^^-ka U 4 -gim §id bf-in“gi 4 U 4 1-a
mu-un-gam h en-bi LXJ+’’KAR^-a mi-ni-in-dib-ba-a
"Year when I(b)bi-Sin, king of Ur, roared like a storm in Susa, Adamdim, and
Awan, subdued them in one day, and took their lords captive.”^^®
[10] mu ^^i “ b 1 - *^8 i n(EN-zxj) lugal url^i-ma-ke 4 bu-dli-nR-^ri^'
sak(!)-kul(!) ma-da an-§a-an^^-§e (var. e 1 a m^^ - ) . . . .
dugud-bi ba-si-gen . .-bi sa-bf-in-gar
"Year: 'I(b)bi-Sin, king of Ur, went in ... . fashion to Huh(u)nuri, the key
(lit., "lock”)^®^ of the land of Anshan (var., Elam) and ’ ”
The last, that which records the campaign against Anshan, would thus be the
formula for I(b)bl-Sin’s 10th year, and the event which it records should have
taken place in his 9th year. This is the very year in which, according to
Schoch’s and Fotheringham’s dates, Naplanum made himself independent in
Larsa.
There is thus full agreement between (1) the absolute date for the 1st dy-
nasty of Babylon as derived from the best of our chronological texts, (2)
Fotheringham’s astronomical date for that same dynasty, and (3) Schoch’s
astronomical date for the fall of the 3d dynasty of Ur. This fact speaks strong-
ly for their correctness, and we have accepted them with little hesitation.^®®
Cf . Poebel’s translation of this formula in AOF IX (1933/34) 248.
In the reading and interpretation of this word we are following Poebel, quoted in
George G. Cameron, The History of Early Iran (Chicago, 1936) p. 58, n. 43.
23oThe author has chosen this phrase deliberately and as distinct from ‘^without hesi-
tation.” The date here accepted is in our considered opinion head and shoulders above
other possibilities in probability. The convergence on it of the three independent lines of
202
The Sumebian King List
CONNECTION OF DATABLE DYNASTIES WITH THOSE
IN THE KING LIST PROPEE
The Eeign of XJtu-hegal
As shown by our detailed discussion of the text of the additions to the King
List (pp. 122-25 and notes), the duration of the 3d d 3 uxasty of Ur can be set at
109 years. Its first year would thus be 2392 b.c. The first king of the dynasty,
Ur~Namniu(k), held office as governor (shakkanakku) of under Utu-hegal,
the last ruler listed in the King List proper, so it is clear that he must have
followed fairly closely upon the latter. An exact correlation of the two rulers
meets, however, with certain difficulties, of which the most important is that
presented by the reign of Utu~hegal.
As we have seen, the King List can be dated to the reign of Utu-hegal
(p. 141). If it was written under him, it seems highly probable, however, that
the figure which it gives for his reign, 7 years, 6 months, and 15 days, represents
not his full reign but only his reign up to date, that is, to the day on which the
scribe finished his work. The very exactness of the figure supports such an as-
sumption; for, since our scribe usually gives the reigns in full years, it is likely
that he would have rounded ofi Utu-hegaFs reign also if he had had it com-
plete. The dating down to month and day in this last figure of the list is, on
the other hand, natural if he here reckons to the day on which he finished his
work. We must therefore allow for the possibility that Utu-hegal may have
reigned longer than the time given in the King List.®^
investigation mentioned places it almost as high in probability as that conception allows.
But we do not think it exceeds those borders; it still hovers slightly below the line separat-
ing highest probability from proven fact.
30 UET I, No. 30, a building inscription concerning E-kishirgal in Ur. The restoration
of u r in i 10 as u r - ['^n a m m u] can be considered certain since the writ-
ing points to his time and since we know from the Ur-Nammu(k) hymn in TRS I, No.
12:109: e-kis-sirs-gdl hur-sag-ga(!)-gim ki-gal-la bi-gub, “E-
kishirgal like a mountain I set upon . . . . that Ur-Nammu(k) really did build E-kishirgal.
LandsbergePs skepticism {OLZ XXXIV [19311 118, n. 1) is therefore unfounded.
Another difficulty may at least be mentioned briefly. Analogy from Lagash indicates
that the Sumerian cities dated according to local date formulas down into Ur-Nammu(k)'s
reign. The local date lists from Ur may therefore have contained date formulas of Ur-Nam-
mu(k) back into the time when he ruled that city as governor of Utu-hegal. If the additions
to the King List were made in Ur on the basis of such a list, the 18 years assigned to Ur-
Nammu(k) could thus include all or part of the time in which he was merely governor. Since
we have no special reason to believe that the additions were made in Ur and since — as
Landsberger has pointed out (Hoc. dt ) — ^the extensive building activities of Ur-Nammu(k)
outside Ur suggest a long reign, it is more probable that his 18 years actually stand for the
time in which he ruled all Babylonia. The Chronicle Weidner, which has been brought
into the discussion (Christian and Weidner in AOF V [1928-29] 140), states that Utu-hegal
RmvvrmG Chronology
203
The difficulty here met with cannot be solved on the evidence of the King List
and its additions. It is therefore fortunate that we have other material which
indicates in which direction the solution lies. Schoch's article in which he cal-
culated the eclipse of the moon foreboding the fall of Ur deals also with obser-
vations concerning an eclipse which took place on the 14th of u (- n u m u n)
and which foreboded : “A decision wUl be given the king of the Gutians; down-
fall of the Gutians by weapons will take place. The land will be lying desti-
tute.’^®^ That this omen has reference to Utu-hegaFs famous victory over the
Gutians, which freed a country bare and destitute after years of Gutian mis-
rule, seems obvious. That, more important, the late text in which the observa-
tions are contained actually rests on a sound historical basis is indicated by the
inscription of Utu-hegal himself.®® According to Utu-hegaFs account of the
campaign, he camped the night before the battle near Muru. As he had prayed
to other city gods on his route, so he prayed to Ishkur also. But the account
does not, as usual, stop there; a passage, unfortunately broken, goes on: 'Tn
the midst of the night Something of importance must thus have oc-
curred in the night just before the decisive battle. What it was can hardly be
doubtful; it must have been the lunar eclipse foreboding victory over the king
of Gutium. The moon-god Sin, the special god of the Gutians,®^ became dark-
ened in token of their imminent defeat. Now Schoch has shown that in the
period which can come into consideration there actually was a very noticeable
eclipse of the moon which took place, as stated in the text, on the 14th of
u - n u m u n and, also as stated in the text, lasted from the first watch
to the middle watch. This was the eclipse of the 20th of July, 2403 b.c.,
committed some evil act and that his body was carried away by the river. It then goes on
(ZA. n.F. VIII 49, 1. 30) : ^^[To] Shulgi, son of divine Ur-Nammu(k), he (i.e., Marduk) gave
the kingship of all countries.^' The reason why the author of the chronicle has Marduk give
the “kingship of ail eountries^^ only to Shulgi, not to his father and predecessor, Ur-Nam-
mu(k), although he knows him, is probably that Ur-Nammu(k)^s kingdom never came up
to the standards implied in the term mrrat hiMat matdte, “kingship of all countries.'^ Note
that, in contrast to Utu-hegal and Shulgi, Ur-Nammu(k) does not use the title “king of
the four regions.” (An exception is perhaps Barton, RISA, p. 274, No. 13. We do not feel
certain, however, that Barton's rendering is correct.) The chronicle apparently implies that
Marduk held back the “kingship of ah countries” after the death of Utu-hegal until the
reign of Shulgi. This agrees with historical conditions. The statement cannot therefore be
used — as it is by Christian and Weidner in AOF V 140 f. — to indicate that Shulgi followed
almost directly upon Utu-hegal. Nor does this statement — as maintained by Landsberger
(be. cit,) — disprove the value of the chronicle as a chronological document.
C. Virolleaud, Uastrohgie chaldemne (Paris, 1905-12) Sin XXXIII 18-36.
33 RA IX (1912) 112 f.
3^ Note the inscription of Laerab (ZA IV [1889] 406; SAKj p. 170), 11. 18-21: ila gu-ti-im
Hnanna ii ^stnj “the gods of Gutium, Inanna(k) and S!n.”
204
The Sumeeian King List
lasting from 9^9"" to 12^^51”^ in the night.^® There is therefore little reason to
doubt that our evidence is reliable, and we can date Utu-hegaFs victory over
the Gutians at Muru, which took place the day after this portent, to July 21,
2403 B.c.
This dating corroborates our suspicion that the figure for Utu-hegal may
not represent his complete reign. As we have seen above, the 3d dynasty of
Ur began in 2392 b.c., which would represent the first year of Ur-Nammu(k).
Utu~hegaFs reign must thus have lasted more than 7 years, 6 months, and
15 days to reach from his victory over the Gutians in 2403 down to that date.
The dating of the victory over the Gutians still leaves a small amount of
uncertainty concerning Utu-hegal, inasmuch as we do not know exactly where
within the 7 years etc. given by the King List that event should be placed.
That it represents the beginning of Utu-hegaFs reign is not very likely, for
from his inscription it is clear that when the summons from Enlil came he had
so complete control of Uruk that he could gather the army and lead it out to a
campaign without even stating what the object was to be. We must therefore
imagine that he was already well established as ruler. Under these circum-
stances, and until further evidence turns up, it therefore seems best to place
this victory where we will get the smallest margin of error, namely in his 4th
year, the middle of the 7 given in the King List. This leaves a margin of error
of only 3 years.
Gutium and Agade
With the period from Utu-hegal back to Agade we are within the limits of
the icing List proper, and it is therefore natural to ask whether the peculiarities
of its author and the methods which he used in dealing with his material may
not have influenced this, the last part of his work, as they did the earlier parts
studied above. Our first concern must therefore be to get as clear a picture as
possible of the sources at his disposal.
The evidence which we have concerning conditions during the Gutian period
tends to show that the larger cities of southern Babylonia enjoyed a certain
measure of independence. They were ruled by their own e n s i (k) and
— to us the most important point— -they apparently dated from local calen-
A smaller eclipse on July 20, 2384, can hardly come into consideration, since placing
the defeat of Gutium there would unduly shorten the reign of Ur-Nammu(k) as king of ail
Babylonia. It would also presuppose that Ur-Nammu(k) began to rule in Ur before Utu-
hegal in Uruk. This is, however, very unlikely; for the fact that Ur»Nammu(k)^s personal
deity is Ninsun {UET I, No. 47; TBS I, No. 12:112-13), a goddess closely connected with
Uruk, suggests that he hails from that city. It is therefore natural to assume that he was
one of Utu-hegaFs men who was made governor of Ur after Utu-hegaFs victory over
Gutium had brought Sumer into his hands.
Resulting Chronology 205
dars featuring local events in the year dates.®® We may therefore assume that
Uruk also had its local calendar. Since the Agade kings, who ruled Babylonia
before Gutium, had succeeded in establishing a central calendar used all over
the country, we may assume furthermore that the local Uruk date lists con-
tinued that calendar (i.e., they had Agade date formulas) until the fall of that
city, then continued with local formulas featuring local events and rulers, of
whom Utu-hegal would be the last.®®^
To such lists as these, the date lists of his day, the author of the King List
naturally had access, and from what we have learned about him and about the
methods which he employed in dealing with his sources it must be considered
highly unlikely that he discarded any of the material which they contained.
He worked, as we have seen, almost exclusively by a method of interpolation.
Therefore when we find that the King List gives the Gutian dynasty wedged in
between rulers of Uruk, Ur-Utu(k) and his predecessors above, Utu-hegal be-
low, it begins to look suspiciously as though that dynasty had been interpo-
lated in a succession of Uruk rulers taken from the local Uruk date lists. If this
suspicion is justified, the Gutian dynasty instead of separating the 4th and 5th
dynasties of Uruk actually ran parallel with them. Placing — as suggested
above — ^the defeat of Tirigan in the 4th year of Utu-hegal, which limits the
margin of error to some 3 years, and assuming that Ur-nigin(ak) of Uruk in-
stituted his own calendar with local date formulas when the last Agade king,
Shti-Durul, died, we get the revised arrangement shown on the following page.
To decide whether this or the successive arrangement of the dynasties pre-
sented by the King List comes nearer to the truth we may compare first the
evidence of Sumerian historical tradition. We possess a number of texts which
state that the reign of Naram-Sin ended in disaster. The Sumerian text BE
XXXI, No. 1, relates a tale of unsuccessful omens and divine decision to over-
throw his rule. The same tradition is found in the long Nar4m-Sin text edited
by Guterbock,®'^ where the gods likewise determine to overthrow his reign
and give his kingship to someone else. In its most precise form the tradition
appears in Chronicle Weidner,®® according to which Nar4m-Sm incurred divine
wrath so that his rule was overthrown and his kingship given to Gutium. That
this widespread tradition rests on a solid historical basis is shown, further, by
See the local year dates of this period from Lagash in RLA II 133 f.
3®^Cf. the parallels from, e. g., Eshiiuiiiia(k), where the calendar similarly changed from
‘‘centralized dates” to local dates when the city became independent after the 3d dynasty
of Ur.
«7 2^J.n.F. VIII 28, U. 31-33.
Ihid, p. 49, 11. 20-22; cf. Christian and Weidner in AOF V (1928-29) 140.
Agade Uruk Gutium
Naram-Sin
4' 37
. — w . mm
: Shar-kali-sharri
1 25
: Shu-Durul
i 15
Ur-nigin(ak)
j Ur-gigir(ak)
-i Kudda
i Puzur-ili
-rUr-Utu(k)
1 Utu-hegal
7
6
6
5
6
•^*t[Erridupizir]
J Inkishush
Sarlagab
Shulme*
Elulumesh
5
7
6
6
7
Inimabakesh
i Igeshaush
larlagab
^Ibate
Marla[ngab]
-i/Kurum
. 'WrHabil-kTn
i=>Laerabum
-Hvlrarum
^^Ibr^nurn
-^Hablum
PuzufSTn
: larlaganda
Si’u(m)
5
6
15
1
5
2
2
1
2
7
7
Tirigan 40dajs
01 o*
Resulting Cheonology
207
a contemporary document, a letter written in the time just after Naram-Sin,
which shows that the Gutian hordes were then already the actual masters of
the country.®®
Now it will be seen that the revised arrangement given above actually has
the beginning of the Gutian d 3 masty at the end of Naram-Sin's reign, in full
agreement with the Sumerian tradition that Nardm-Stn was overthrown and
that the Gutians took over his kingship. It is therefore clearly preferable to the
successive arrangement of the dynasties now presented by the King List; for
there the Gutians are separated from Nar4m-Sm by twelve later rulers, cover-
ing nearly a century. This result is not surprising, for the successive arrange-
ment rests solely on the authority of the order of dynasties given in the King
List, and that feature of the list is, as we have seen above, quite unreliable.
The evidence from Sumerian tradition is not the only argument which shows
that the parallel arrangement of the dynasties is correct. Among the Gutian
rulers is one Elulumesh, whose name is evidently Akkadian Elulum slightly
“Gutianized” by the Gutian case(?) ending This Gutian ruler Elulum
is obviously the same man whom we find participating in the scramble for
power after the death of Shar-kali-sharri; his name appears there in Sumerian
form without mimation as Elulu. The correctness of the revised arrangement
comes out plainly when we find that there Elulum^s reign as Gutian ruler and
his participation in the struggle after Shar-kali-sharri belong to the same time.
By the successive arrangement they would be pulled more than eighty years
apart.
Lastly we may mention a date formula of Shar-kali-sharri, according to
which this ruler was a contemporary of the Gutian king Sarlag (sar-Zo-ag),
whom he defeated.'^^ Now the King List has among the Gutian rulers one
whose name is written s a r - kil - 1 a - g a b (var. zS^-ar-la-ga-ba) .
Since kil may itself be read 1 a g a b , it seems reasonable to assume that
the repetitious 1 a - g a b following it represents a gloss which has got down
into the line, so that we should read sar-laga , an assumption
supported by the variant also.'^^ n jg difficult to recognize in the name Sar-
lag an abbreviated form of this Sarlagab; and the correctness of the revised
JRAS, 1932, p. 296, BM 121205.
That (e)l is a grammatical ending is suggested by the frequency with which it occurs
at the end of Gutian proper names. Of. Inimabak-el, Inki§U“(e)s, Igesau-(e)s, and larla-
ga-(e)l
« RTC, No. 118; SAK, p. 225 c.
See the discussion of the name above (p. 118, n. 291).
208
The Sumebian King List
arrangement is once more evidenced when we find that in it Sarlagab and
Shar-kali-sharri appear as contemporaries.
The parallel arrangement, suggested by consideration of sources and of the
methods used by the author of the King List, is thus vouched for by Sumerian
historical tradition, which makes Gutian domination begin after Nar^m-Sin,
by the fact that it places the apparently identical Elulu and Elulumesh in
the same period, and by the fact that its correlation of Shar-kali-shani with
Sarlagab corresponds with the synchronism Shar-kali-sharri-Sarlag. We have
therefore adopted it in preference to the successive arrangement, for which
there is no other authority than the highly suspect present order of dynasties
in the King List.
INDEX
Italic numbers refer to the most important pages, especially those in the text of the King
List (chap, iii) where the various rulers and dynasties appear.
A, 18-23, 50, 54-55, 67, 82-85, 102, 104r*5,
108-9, 115-18, 143
A-Anne-pada, 172-7S, 181, 183, 184-
86, 190, and Tables I-II
Aba, 15-16, 18, 19, 22, 79
Abi-Eshuh, 195; time of — , 102
Abi-sare, 138 and Table II
Abraham, 89
Adab, 102, 149, 151; dynasty of—, 100-103,
156
Adad, 194
Adamdun, 201
additions to the King List, 21, 32, 56-57,
61-77, 86, 122-27, 135-36
Aelian, 87, 89-91
Agade, 13, 111, 143, 155, 167, 179, 182, 205;
— dynasty, 6, 9-11, 14, 28-28, 45, 47, 50-
51, 62-S3, 110-16, 156, 158, 160-61, 177-
79, 204~8, and Tables I-II; — period, 97,
119, 144, 148-50, 162, 166; — variants, 3,
14, 23-28, 42-46
Aka, 84-85, 163, 168, 186, 187-88, and
Tables I-II
A-kalam-du(g), 181
Akkadian influence on Sumerian, 149; —
loan words in Sumerian, 17-18, 171; —
passage in King List, 52-53, 112-13
Akshak, 106, 158-60, 167, 181; dynasty of
— , 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 29, 102, 104-5, 106-7,
15^60, 169, 176-77, 179, 181, and Tables
A-Kurgal(ak), 180, 185, and Tables I-II
A1 , 182
Aialgar, 65, 70-7i
A4ulim(ak), 65, 68, 70-71
amissible final consonants, 69, 87-88
Ammi-§aduqa, time of, 102; Venus tablets
of — , 196-97
Amorite names, 124
Amurru, 201
An, 58, 152, 198-99
Anam, 89
animal names, 17-18, 78-80, 152, 155
Anshan, 137, 200-201
Ansud, 102-3
antediluvian rulers, 166-67; — section of
King List, 5, 11, 29, 65-68, 70-77, 136
Anu-banlni, 140
A-nu-zu, 172
Apil-Sin, Table II
Aqqi, 145
Arad-gin, 76
Arad-Nanna(k), 98
Arbum, see Arwi^um
arrangement of dynasties, see dynasties, ar-
rangement of
Arwi^um (Arbum, Arwi, Arwiu), 15-16, 17-
18, 19-20, 21-22, 23, 56, 80-81
Ashur temple, 192
Ashurbanipai, 57
Ashur-resh-ishi I, 194-95
Ashur-uballit, 193-94
assimilation of vowels, see vowels, assimila-
tion of
Assyrian chronology, 191-94; — period, 11,
60, 90, 145, 191
astronomical dating, 196-97, 199, 201, 203-4
Atab, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21-28, 56, 78-81
Atabba, 15-16, 18-20, 21-23, 56, 79-80;
— variants, 15-23, 28, 42, 44-46
author of the King List, 18, 61-63, 136, 139,
143, 146-47, 152-56, 158-64, 204-5
Awan, 95, 158, 201; dynasty of — , 94-05,
156-58
Azupiranu, 145
B, 18-23, 27-28, 42-48, 50, 55, 64, 67, 79,
82-85, 102, 104-5, 108-9, 11^, 115-18,
143, 174-75
Baba, 104-5
Babylon, 7-8, 60, 70, 146, 194; 1st dynasty
of—, 168, 195, 197-98, 201; period of 1st
dynasty of—, 5-7, 9-13, 90, 144, 175
Babylonian chronological material, 191,
193-97
Bad4ibira(k), 58-59; antediluvian dynasty
of 65, 70-75, 74
Bahina, 78-79
Balih (Walih), 80-81, 168, and Tables I-II
Balulu, 94-95, 172, 184, and Tables I-II
210
The Sumerian King List
Bar-Ilitabba(k), 139
Bar-namtarra, 150
Bar-sal-nunna, 82-83 j 168, 188, and Tables
'^Bavian date/' 194
Berossus, 60, 70-76, 87-88
Bu-AN-?-iim, 75-7P
Bur-Sin of Isin, 124-25, 130, 135, and Table
Bur-Sin of Ur, 122-23, 130-31, 133, 135-36,
174-75, and Table II
calendars, see date lists mid dating systems
case endings, Akkadian, 69; Gutian — , 207
Cassite invasion, 195
^ ^causative" - n - , 131-35, 139
chronology, absolute, 189, 191, 194-99, 201-
. 4; Assyrian — , see Assyrian chronology;
Babylonian — , see Babylonian chrono-
logical material
city king lists, see date lists, local
collation of WB, 29, 69
collective form of nouns, 39; — of verbs, see
verbs, collective form of
consonants, amissible, 69, 87-88; develop-
ment of — , 18, 71-72; see also erne- sal
forms and nasalization
conventions observed in transliteration, 16,
69
Dadasig, 96-97, 168, and Tables I-II
Dagan, 113
Damiq-ilishu, 5-7, 127, 130, 135, 198-99,
and Table II
Damqi-ilishu, 198-99
date formulas, 122-23, 137-38, 144, 147-48,
195-201; local — , 202, 204-5
date lists, 123, 144, 147-48, 150-51, 200;
local — , 151, 154, 156-59, 161, 165-66,
179-82, 197, 202, 204r-5
date of original King List, 128-41
dates of extant manuscripts of King List,
5-7, 9-13, 23, 124
Dati-Enlil, 113
dating, criteria for: ideology, 138-40; lan-
guage, 67-68, 129-40, 186; names, types
of, 187-89; orthography, 2, 7, 124, 131-35,
139, 172, 182, 184-86; sign forms, 5-7, 9-
13, 184-85, 202; stratigraphy, 181; style
of statuary, 186; tablet forms, 184-85
dating systems, Assyrian, 191-92; Baby-
lonian — , 193; Sumerian — , 147-51
deified kings, 68, 98-99
Deluge, 56, 58-60, 65-66, 76-77
determinatives, use of, as dating evidence,
, 7, 68, 124, 182
dialectal forms, see e m e - sal forms
dictation, errors due to, 14, 17, 76, 81, 91,
94, 173 ^ »
Dudu, 130
Dudu, king of Agade, 24-26, 114-15, 177,
206, and Table II
Dudu, s a n g u -priest of Ningirsu(k), 149-
50
Duggagib, see Zuqaqip
Dumu-zi(d) (Tammuz) of Bad-tibira(k), 72-
78
Dumu-zi(d) (Tammuz) of Uruk, 88-89,
142-43, 145, 170, and Tables I-II
Dungi, see Shulgi
Dur-an-ki(k), 75
d 3 masties, arrangement of, 2, 13, 58-60, 66,
70-72, 74-75, 102, 104-5, 159-67, 204-8;
division of — , 161-62, 168-69, 172-73;
parallel — , 2-3, 165, 205-8
dynasties of one ruler each, formulas for
totals in, 30, 33, 61-63, 99, 102
E, e n s i (k) of Adab, 149
E-Anna(k), 37, 84-85, S7, 91, 143
E-Anna(k)-tum (Lumma), 39, 99, 155, 180-
81 ; inscriptions of — , 137, 184; time of — ,
71, 137, 172, 184-85
Early Dynastic II-III, 189 and Table II
Egypt, relations of, with Mesopotamia, 189
Egyptian chronology, 189, 193
E-Ishkur(ak), 139
Ekallate, 194
E-kishirgal, 202
E-kur, 98-99
Elam, 82, 84-85, 88 , 95, 137, 141, 178, 201
Elamite documents, 10 , 90, 156; — lan-
guage, 40-41; — versions of King List, 1 ,
10-11, 25-26, 34, 40-41, 46, 51, 54-55
{see also Sui, Su 2 , Sua+ 4 )
Emi{n), 184
Elulu (IMu) of Agade, 24-26, 52, 114-15,
177, 206, 207-8, and Table II
EMu of Ur, 94 - 95 , 172, 184j 190, and Tables
Elulumesh, 12, 118-19, 120-21, 206, 207-8,
and Table II
erne- sal forms, 18, 71, 74
Emizum, Table II
Emutbal, 195
En-am“gal-Anna(k), 200
En-Anna-tum I, 180 and Tables I-II
En-Anna-tum II, 180 and Tables I-II
Enbi-Eshtar, 96-97, 118, 168-69, 188, 190,
and Tables I-II
Index
211
Eii-e(ii)tar"zi(d), 114, 149-50, 180, and
Tables I-II; inscription of — , 137; time
of — , 187
Enki, 60, 198-99
Enkidu, 89
Enlil, 59-60, 89, 93, 178, 198-99, 201, 204;
— temple in Nippur, 99, 157
Enlil-bani, 6-7, 23, im-27, 130, 145, 175,
and Table II
Enlilia(k)-.zi(d), 98-99
Eniil-nadin-apli, 193-94
En”me(n)-barage-si, 56, 82-86^ 142-43, 162,
168, 188, and Tables I-II
En-men-dur-Anna(k), 7 4-7 5
En“men-gal-Anna(k), 72-78
En-men-lu-Anna(k), 70-78
En-ine(n)-nunna, 73, 80-88, 168, 188-89,
and Tables I-II
En-me(r)-kar, 56, 77, 85, 86-87, 89, 142-43,
170, and Tables I-II
En-nun-dara-Anna(k), 90-91, 170, 188-89,
and Tables I-II
Enridapizir, see Erridupizir
En-shakush-Anna(k), 100-101, 170-71, IBS,
190, and Tables I-II; time of — , 148
En-sipa(d)-zi(d)-Anna(k), 60, 74-75
En-temena, 139, 149-50, 188, 190, and
Tables I-II; inscriptions of — , 137, 139,
149- 51, 181, 184-85; statue of — , 99
epithets, 29-32
eponym lists, 192
Era, see Irra
Eridu(g), 58-61, 64, 89; antediluvian
dynasty of — , 65-68, 70-71
Erishum, 192-93
Erridupizir (var, Enridapizir), 117, 206, and
Table II
error, source of, see dictation
E-sag-ila, 146
Esarhaddon, 192-93
E-shar, 149
Esh-barra, 98
Eshnunna(k), 140, 149, 205; see also Tett
Asmar
Eshtar-muti, 108-9, 110, 159-61, 168, and
Tables I-II
Etana, 56, 80-81, 142-43, 145-46, 152, 155,
156-57, 162, 168, and Tables I-II
Fara names, 150, 187-90; — texts, 84, 147,
150- 51, 184-85, 187-89; see also Shurup-
pak
Flood, see Deluge
formulas: for change of dynasty, 14, 28-37,
39, 41, 43-44, 46-49, 55, 61-64, 100, 131,
137-40, 170; for dynasty total, 14, 28, 30-
44, 46-49, 56, 61-4)3, 129; for introducing
new dynasties, 29, 64, 67-68, 107, 122,
135-36, 143, 152, 162, 168-69, 172-73;
for introducing single rulers, 14, 28-36,
38, 42, 49, 54-55, 61-62, 92, 100, 131
170; for king’s father, 18, 21, 28-29
G, 12, 86, 38, 42, 106, 118-19
Ganhar, 98
Gashananna(k), 62
GA4-§UB-nun-na, 96-97, 168, 189, and
Tables I-II
genitive case, see gi*ammar
Gilgames, 18, 87, 88-91, 142-44, 146, 157,
163, 170, 182, 186, 188-89, 190, and
Tables I-II
Gimil- , see Shu- ....
glosses, 82, 96, 99, 118, 169, 183, 207
grammar: case endings, 69, 207; genitive
ease, 21-22, 30, 71, 80; infix -ra-, 62;
locative case, 30; nouns, plurals of, 39;
preposition “after,” 66; relative sen-
tences, 29, 105, 143 ; subject element - e ,
17, 29-36, 135; suffix -bi, 37, 40, 84;
verb, identifying, and verb, transitive,
see verb; verbs, collective, passive, and
singular, see verbs
Greek transliterations of Sumero-Akkadian
names, 70-77, 87-88, 90, 103
Gudea, 138, 140; inscriptions of — , 131,
137- 38, 146; statue of — , 99
Gulkishar, 193, 195
Gungunum, 137 and Table II
Gunidu, Tables I-II
Gurshar, 180 and Tables I-II
Gutian language, 119, 207; — - period, 138
Gutium, dynasty of, 6, 11-13, 37, 116-21,
138- 40, 183, 203-8, and Table II
Ga. .ur,
Habil-kln, 118-19, 206, and Table II
Hablum, 120-21, 206, and Table II
Hamazi, dynasty of, 96-99, 156
Hammurabi, 113, 193, 195-98; — dynasty,
193 {see also Babylon, 1st dynasty of) ; —
period 5-6, 10, 129, 191; post period,
38
Hani, 149
HatEnish,
Hebrew name, 78
Huh(u)nuri, 201
larlagab, 118-19, 206, and Table II
larlagan, 120, 150
larlaganda, 120-21, 206, and Table II
212
The Sumebian King List
larlagash, 118-19, 207
larla(ngab), 118-19, 206, and Table II
Jasbi-ila, 124
*Iasbl-Irra, 124
Ibate, 118-19, 206, and Table II
I(b)bi-Sin, 12, 122-28, 130, 134, 174-75,
197, 199-201, and Table II
Ibranum, 118-19, 206, and Table II
Idamaraz, 195
I(d)din-Dagan, 68, 124-25, and Table II
I(d)dm"Eshtar, 126
ideograms, 113; pseudo , 18, 106
ideology of the King List, 138-41, 158,
162-64
Igeshaush, 12, 118-19, 206-7, and Table II
Igigi (var. Irgigi), 24-26, 52, 112-13, 114,
177, 206, and Table II
IkOn-pi-Eshtar, 8
11, 139
Ilbaba, see Zababa
Ilku^ (Ilkum), 82-88, 168, and Tables I-II
Ilta-sadum, 82-83, 168, and Tables I-II
Ilulu, see Elulu of Agade
Iluma-ilum, 195-96
Ilushu-ilia, 140
Ilu-shuma, 192
Imbia, see Imta^
Im^^ 24, 26, 52, 114-15, 177, 206, and Table
Imta= (var. Imbia), 12, 118-19, 120, 206, and
Table II
Inanna(k), 86-87, 139, 155, 200, 203
infix - r a - , 62; S e - , 184
Inimabakesh, 12, 118-19, 120-21, 206-7,
and Table II
Inkishush, 12, 118-19, 206-7, and Table II
Inpiq-Hanish, 149
interregnum in the Agade period, 24, 26,
52-53, 112-15, 177
Irarum, 118-19, 206, and Table II
Irgigi, see Igigi
Irra (Era), 7, 124
Irra(?)- ,8
Irra-imi(t)ti, 126-27, 130, and Table II
Ishbi-Irra, 67-68, 124-25, 199, and Table II
Ishkur, 139, 203
Ishkur- . . , . , 125
Ishm6-Dagan, 9, 124-25, and Table II
Ishm^-Shamash, 108-9, 159-61, 168, and
Tables I-II
Ishll-il, 12, m-7, 169-60, m, and Tables
I-II
Isin, 109, 138, 195-99; dynasty of — , 5-10,
12, 67-68, 109, 136, 197-99, and
Table II; — period, 99, 105, 128-29,
135-36
Isin-Larsa period, 8, 38, 61, 89-90, 98, 129,
137, 145, 148, and Table II
It5r-pkha, 126-27 and Table II
J, 11, 12-13, 36, 38, 41-42, 49-50, 54-56,
120-24f 131, and plate at end
Jamdat Na§r period, 189
K, 11, 35-36, 37-38, 41-42, 48, 50, 55-57, 66,
80-82, 129, 131
Ksi-kn(g), 100-101, 172, 175-76, 178, and
Tables I-II
Kalbum, 96-97, 168, and Tables I-II
Kalibum, 15-18, 19-21, 55-56, 78-79
Kandalanu, 193
Kazallu, 138
''king of Kish,” 155-56, 181-82
king lists, Assyrian and Babylonian, 191-95;
local — , see date lists, local
kings, missing, 2-3, 158, 165-66, 172-73,
180- 83, 189
kingship, descent of, from heaven, 58-59,
65-66; movements of — on earth, 37, 66,
139-40, 158, 162; theory of single — , 66,
139-40, 158, 162-65
Kirkuk, 98
Kish, 3, 5, 12, 69, 77, 104, 106, 111, 141-42,
149, 154-57, 159-63, 167-69, 178-79,
181- 83, 188; 1st dynasty of — , 5-7, 9-11,
14-23, 55-56, 67, 73, 76-85, 152-53, 155-
66, 157, 186, and Tables I-II; 2d dynasty
of ~, 96-97, 153, 155-57, 183, and
Tables I-II; 3d dynasty of — , 11, 15,
53-54, 102, 104-5, 153, 155-57, 159-60,
179, and Tables I-II; 4th dynasty of — ,
10-11, 53-54, 102, 104, 106-11, 153, 155-
57, 159-61, 178-79, and Tables I-II
Ku^a(ra), 29, 58, 70, 88-89, 142
Eudda, 51, 114-15, 116, 206, and Table II
Eu(g)-Baba, 15, 53-54, 104-5, 106-8, 110,
142-43, 146, 159-61, 168-69, 177, 179,
and Tables I-II
Kul , 94-95
Kullab, 90-91, 142-43
Kurlil torso, 186
Kurum, 118-19, 206, and Table II
Kutir-Nahhunte, 10
Kuyunjik, 11
Li, 9, 13, 24-27, 28, S3, 35-36, 38, 41-42,
4S-46, 47, 49-50, 52-55, 56, 94-104,
106-8, 110-21, 131, 178, 178
La, 9, S3, 38, 42, 55-56, 76-78
Index
213
Laba. . , .m, 90-91 j 170^ and Tables I-II
Laerabum (Laerab, Lasirab), 1 18-19 y 20%
and Table II; inscription of — , 119, 203
Lagash, 114, 138, 149-51, 155, 157-59, 161,
179-81, 184-87, 202, and Tables I-II
Lal-ur-alimmaCk), 72
Lamkurm, 75, 86
language, see dating, criteria for; oho
grammar and orthography
Larak, 58-59; antediluvian dynasty of — ,
60, 74-75, 76
Larsa, 5, 72, 75, 137-38, 197-98, 201; ante-
diluvian dynasty of — , 58, 71-72, 74;
dynasty of — , i97-98 and Table II; —
list, see WB; — period, see Isin-Larsa
period
Lasirab, see Laerabum
ffli^-demon, 18, 29, 90-91, 142
limmu lists, 191-92
Lipit-Enlil, lU-^6, 135, and Table II
Lipit-Eshtar, 124-^5 and Table II
Lugal , 181-82
Lugal-anda, 149-50, 180; statue of — , 99;
time of — , 89, 149, 187
Lugal-Anne-mundu, 102-S
Lugal-banda, 56, 88-89 y 91, 142-43, 146,
170, and Tables I-II
Lugal-kinishe-dudu, 100-101, 170, 172,175-
76, 183, 184, 190, and Tables I-II
Lugal-kisal-si, 3, 100-101, 170, 172, 175-70,
and Tables I-II
Lugal-ki-tun, 92-98, 170, and Tables I-II
Lugal-me-lam, 51, 54, 116
Lugalmu, 96-97, 168, 183, and Tables I-II
Lugal-shag-engur, 149
Lugal-tarsi, 181-82
Lugal-zage-si, 110-11, 160-61, 170, 171,178-
80, and Tables I-II
Lumma, 98-99; see also E-Anna (k) -turn
Maeri (Mari), dynasty of, 10, 102 -8, 106,
156-58
Magalgalla (var. Mamagaila), 96-97, 142-
43, 168, and Tables I-II
Malgia, 137-38
Mamagaila, see Magalgalla
Man-ishtushu, 24, 26-27, 69, 112-18, 155,
177, 181-82, and Tables I-II
manuscripts of Eung List, extant, see G, J,
K, Lx, L 2 , P 2 , Pa, P 4 , Ps, Pe, S, Sui, Su2,
SU 3 + 4 , WB; hypothetical ancestral — , see
A, B, Su, X, Y, Z
M4rbiti-apal-u§ur, 11
Marduk, 203
Marduk-nadin-ahe, 194-95
Mari, see Maeri
Mashda, 15-16, 17-18, 20 , 21-22, 79 , 80-81
Mash-Sud, 151
Melam-Anna(k), 92-93, 170, and Tables
Melam-Kishi(k), 82-83, 155, 168, and
Tables I-II
Menes, 189
Mes-Anne-pada, 2 , 92-95, 155, 158, 172-78,
181-82, 189, and Tables I-II
MEs(p-Hi, 92-98, 142-43, 170, and Tables
Me-siiim, 3, 149, 181-82; inscriptions of — ,
149, 151
MeS“kalam“dii(g), 181
Mes-kiag-gasher, 21 , 84-87, 92, 142-43, 170,
188, and Tables I-II
Mes-kiag-nunna(k) (var. Mes-kiag-Nan-
na(k)), 94 - 95 , 172-78, 189, and Tables
Mesopotamia, relations of, with Egypt, 189
missing kings, see kings, missing
Muati, 120
Muati“qu(b)bisin, 120
Muru, 139-40, 203-4
Nabonidus, 194
Nabh of Borsippa, 120
names, Akkadian, in Sumerian context, 16
names, meanings of: A-lulim(ak), 71;
Arwi^um, 17-18, 80; Etana, 80-81; Gil-
games, 188-89; Hatanish, 98; Inpiq-
Hanish, 149-50; Kalibum, 17, 78; Ku(g)-
Baba, 104; Lugalmu, 97; Magalgalla, 96;
Man-ishtushu, 112 ; Mashda, 17-18, 80;
Muati-qii(b)bfsm, 120; Nangish-lishm^,
78; Paia-ktnatim, 78; Qaiumu(m), 17,
78-79; Tizkar, 83; Zuqaqip, 79
names, readings of, see readings of names;
spelling of — in English context, 69, 77,
82-83
Nangish4ishm4, 78-79
Nani, see Nanum
Nanna, 92-93, 172-73
Nannia, 108-9, 142-43, 159-61, 168, and
Tables I-II
Nanum (var. Nani), 24, 26, 52, 114-15, 177,
206, and Table II
Naplaniim, 198-99, 201, and Table II
Nar^m-Sin, 24, 26, 28, 112-18, 117, 177-78,
205-8, and Table II
nasalization, 119
Nebuchadnezzar I, 194
Neo-Babylonian period, 70, 145
Nidaba, 76-77, 88
214
ThB 3 StTMEBIAN KiNG LiST
Nigi, 86
Nmgirsu(k), 138, 149
Ninhursag, 60
Ninsun, 91, 204
Nintii, temple of, in Adab, 102
Nin-tur, 172
Ninurta, 108
Niniirta-nadin-shumati, 194
Nippur, 5-9, 72, 75, 89, 93, 99, 157, 174,
195-96, 200-201; — lists, 57 {see also
Li -2 and P2-6)
notes, copyists^ 77, 97, 100-101, 117, 171
^^notes,” historical and genealogical, 13, 18,
29, 31, 105, 141-47, 151, 154, 157, 160, 163
nouns, plurals of, 39
numbering of lines, 10, 15, 69
numerals, positions of, 38-39, 112, 120-22,
174-75
numerical system, Sumerian, 97, 108
Numkurru, 75, 86
NUr-Adad, Table II
Mr-Ninshubur, 126-27
Nuzi texts, 98
order of dynasties, see dynasties, arrange-
ment of; — of rmers, 13, 19-23, 59-60, 73,
79, 104, 107-8, 114, 166; — of signs, see
orthography
orthography: amissible final consonants,
69, 87-88; ''causative'^ - n-, writing of,
131-35, 139; genitive, writing of, 30, 71;
ideographic writing, 113; infix or
-§i-, 184; order of signs, 18, 88 , 172,
184r-86; phonetic writings, 75, 77, 86 , 88 ,
104-6; preposition ^Vith,” writing of, 112;
pseudo-ideographic writings, 18, 106; sub-
ject element -n-, writing of, 36, 38,
41, 85, 131-35, 138-39; suffixes, writing
of, 186
P 2 , 5-e, 7, 15-18, 21 , 23, 24-27, 28, 31, 37-
38, 41-42, 43-47, 48, 50, 53, 55-57, 64,
69, 78-95, 98-101, IO4, 111-12, 114-15,
120-21, 124-25, 131, 143, 171, 173-75
Ps, 6, 15-18, 23, 24-27, 28, 81-32, 38, 42,
43-46, 50, 52-53, 55-57, 64, 78-81, 84-86,
111-14, 178
P 4 , 6-7, 32, 36, 38, 41-42, 49, 51, 55-56,
116-18
P«, 7, 15-18, 23, 32, 36-38, 41-42, 46-46, 4S,
50, 54-57, 66 , 78-84, 132-27, 129, 131,
135, 174-75
Pe, 7-8, 32, 38, 41-42, 47, 55-56
Pal^kinatim, 78-79
patronymics, formula for, 18, 21 , 28; use of
subject element with — , 30-34
'Peleg, 88 ^ .
phonetic writings, see orthography
preposition ^^after,^’ 66 ; — • ^Vith,'^ 112
Puzur-ili, 51, 114-15, 116, 206, and Table II
Puzur-Nirah (Puzur-Sahan) , 12 , 104, 106-7,
159-60, 176, 179, and Tables I-II
Puzur-Sin of Gutium, 120-21, 206, and
Table II
Puzur-Sin of Kish, 53-54, 104-5, 106-9, 159-
60, 168, 177, and Tables I-II
Qalumu(m), 15-20, 78-79
readings of names: Akshak 106;
Ansud (an-Bu), 103; Bad-tibira(k), 72;
Eluldan (li - 1 u - u 1 - dan) , 114; Enbi-
Eshtar, 96, 169; En-shakush-Anna(k),
171; Irra, 124; Ku^a(ra) (A-igA^V;gA-A^O,
88 ; Ku(g)-Baba (kfi-%A-u), 104-5;
Laerab, 119; Lugal-kinishe-dudu, 172;
Maeri, 29, 102; MEs(?)-g]E, 92; Puzur-
Nirah, 106, 179; Samug, 82-83; Sarlagab
(s^r- KiL- la-gab) , 118, 207; Shu-
ruppak, 75; Ur-Zababa(k) (u r - ‘^za-mal-
mal), 107; Zuqaqip, 79
readings of signs: 15, 31, 46, 77-78, 83, 90,
119, 201; Bu= sud 4 , 103; en=* in, 150;
G:i^=k 64 , 16; hi~exorix, 114; NAin Sui =
mistake for as, 34; pa in pa m u - n a - 5=
pa, 132;
113
relative sentences, see grammar
Rim-Sin, 10, 197-99, and Table II
Rimush, 24, 26, 27, 28, 42, 110-13, 155, 175,
177-78, 181-82, and Tables I-II
rulers, missing, see kings, missing
S, 9, 13, 24-27, 28, 33-34, 36-38, 41-42,
43-46, 47-48, 50, 51-54, 55-56, 66 , IO4-
16, 129, 131, 177-78
§abeans of Harran, 73
Samsu-iluna, 7, 195-96
Samug, 56, 82-83, 168-69, and Tables I-II
Samu^um, Table II
Sargon (Sharru(m)-kin), 13, 18, 24, 26-27,
107, 110-13, 143, 145-46, 148, 155, 158-
61, 163, 177-79, 181-82, and Tables I-II
Sargonic times, 89, 137; pre times, 146-
47, 149-51, 154
Sarlag, 207-8
Sariagab, 12, 118-19, 206, 207-8, and Table
Sennacherib, 194-95
Shala, 194
Shalmaneser I, 192-93
Shamshi-Adad I, 192-93
Shar-kali-sharri, 24-26, 28, 52, 112-13, 177-
78, 206, 207-8, and Table II
Index
215
Sharru(m)-kin, see Sargon
Shiruduh, 10
ShU“Durui (Gimil-Durul), 24, 26, 114-15.
177 y 205™6, and Table II
Shu-ilishu (Gimil-iiishu), 68, 109, 124-25.
and Table II
Shulgi (Dungi), 89, 122-23 ^ 124, 130, 133,
138, 174-75, 203, and Table II
Shulme^, 12, 118-19, 206, and Table II
Shulpa^e, 132
Shuruppak, 58-59, 69, 151; antediluvian
dynasty of —, 56, 58, 60, 68, 74-77
Shuruppak (ki), 76
Shu-Sin (Gimil-Sln) of Akshak, 106-7, 159-
60, 176-77, and Tables I-II
Shu-Sln (Gimii-Sin) of Ur, 12, 98, 122-23,
129-31, 133-36, 174-75, and Table II
sign forms as dating evidence, see dating,
criteria for
signs, order of, see orthography: order of
signs; readings of — , see readings of signs
gilli-Adad, Table II
Simashu, 156
Simu-ddr, 108-9, 110, 159-61, 168, and Ta-
bles I-II
Simurum, 200
Stn, 203
Stn-i(d)dinam, Table II
Stn-iqtsham, Table II
Stn-irlbam, Table II
Stn-magir, 5, 126-27, 135, and Table II
Sln-muballit, 197-99
Sippar, 58-59; antediluvian dynasty of — ,
56, 60, 68, 74-75
Si"u(m), 120-21, 150, 206, and Table II
spelling of Sumerian and Akkadian names in
English context, 69, 77, 82-83
statues of gods, 194; — of kings, 99
stratigraphy, 181
Su, 10, 28, 44-48, 50, 53-55, 174
Sui, 10, 15-18, 23, 24-27, 28, S4y 36-38, 40,
41-42, 4^-46, 47-50, 51, 53, 54-66, 56-57,
64, 78-82, 86-91, 99-104, 106-12, 114-16,
122-26, 131, 174-77
Su2, 10, 34-35, 37-38, 40, 41-42, 46-47, 48,
50, 54-56, 56, 69, 76-78, 82-85, 92, 131
Su3+4, 10-11, 2^27, 28, 36, 36-38, 40, 41-
42, 43-46, 47-50, 51-55, 56, 98-100, 104-
18, 120-24, 131, 171, 174, 178
Su , $6-97, 168, and Tables I-II
subject element - e , 17, 29-36, 135
subject element - n - , writing of, see orthog-
raphy
succession of dynasties, see dynasties, ar-
rangement of; — of rulers, see order of
rulers
Sud, 151
Sud-KA-zida, 151
suffix - b i, 37, 40, 84
suffixes, use of, as dating evidence, 186
Sumu-abum, 7-8, 193, and Table II
Sumii-El, 138 and Table II
Sumu-la-El, 193 and Table II
sun-god, see Utu
Susa, 10-11, 25, 95, 201; — lists, see Elamite
versions of King List and Sui, Su 2 , Sus +4
Syriac names, 78, 87, 89-90
§E-e, 96-97, 168, and Tables I-II
Tammuz, 91; see also Dumu-zi(d)
Tell Asmar, 119; see also Eshnunna(k)
Telloh, 181-82; see also Lagash
texts of King List, see manuscripts
Theodore bar K6n!, 87, 89-90
Tiglathpileser, 194-95
Tirigan, 120-21, 138-39, 205-6, and Table
II
titles: “king of Kish,^' 155-56, 181-82;
“king of the four regions,'' 117, 203; “off-
spring of Dagan,” 113; “offspring of En-
id," 113; lugal kalam-ma, 171
Tizkar, 55, 82-83, 168, and Tables I-II
translations, explanations of, 36-37, 58-59,
61-62, 77, 84, 86, 88, 90-91, 105, 113,
137-38, 148, 198-99, 201; see also names,
meanings of
transliteration, conventions observed in, 16,
69
transposition of signs, see orthography: or-
der of signs
Tuktn-hatti-migrisha, 201
Tukulti-Ninurta I, 192
al-^Ubaid, 2, 184
Ubar-Tutu(k), 58, 60, 69, 74-76
Umma, 90, 120, 139, 150, 179, 181
Ummimi, 149
Undalulu, 12, 106-7, 159-60, 176-77, and
Tables I-II
Unzi, 12, 106-7, 159-60, 176, 181, and Ta-
bles I-II
Ur, 69, 141, 155, 157, 161, 167, 172-76, 181-
82, 184, 186, 188, 196, 200-202, 204; 1st
dynasty of — , 5, 9, 92-95, 153, 155, 157-
58, 173-75, 181, 184-86, and Tables I-II;
2d dynasty of — , 10, 100-101, 153, 155,
157, 173-76, 178, 183, and Tables I-II;
3d dynasty of — , 7, 10-13, 67-68, 122-25,
. 136, 174-76, 197, 199-202, 204r-5, and
216
The SxjMEKiAH King List
Table II; period of 3d dynasty of 98,
112,129,131,139-40,147
Ur- ,8
Ur-Du(I)kuga(k), and Table II
Ur-E-Mtrs(k), 149
Ur-Engur, see Ur-Nammu(k)
Ur-gigir(ak), 51, lllf-tS, 116, 206, and Ta-
ble II
Ur-Ishkur(ak), 98
Ur-lugal(ak) (var. Ur-Nungai(ak)),
182
Ur-Nammu(k) (Ur-Engur), 67-68, 89, 122-
23, 132, 138, 174-75, 202-4, and Table II
Ur-Nanshe(k) (Ur-Nin4), 158-59, 184-88,
190, and Tables I-II; statue of — , 99;
time of — , 187-88, 190; — level at Tellob,
182
Ur-nigin(ak), 51, 114-15, 116, 205-6, and
Table II
Ur-Nin4, Ur-Nanshe(k)
Ur-Ninurta(k), 21, 124-25, and Table II
Ur-Nungai(ak) (var. Ur-lugal(ak)), 90-91,
170, and Tables I-II
Ur-Sina(k), 98-99
Uruk, 8, 21, 69, 85-87, 89, 91, 139, 141-43,
154-57, 161, 163, 167, 169-72, 184, 188,
196, 204^-5; 1st dynasty of — , 6-7, 10,
55, 84-93, 151-53, 155, 157, 171, 182, 186,
and Tables I-II; 2d dynasty of — , 11,
98-101, 153, 155, 157, 169-72, 183-84,
and Tables I-II; 3d dynasty of — ,10-11,
110-11, 153, 155, 157, 160-61, 171, 178-
80, and Tables I-II; 4th dynasty of — ,
6, 9-11, 50-51, 54, 114-17, 120, 153, 155,
157, 171, 205-h, and Table II; 5th dynas-
ty of — , 11-12, 120-23, 171, 202-^, and
Table II; — period, 189
Uru-KA-gina, 150, 179-80, and Tables I-II;
— period, 187-88; — texts, 148, 184-85
Ur-ur, 12, 106-7, 159-60, 176-77, and Tables
Ur-Utu(k), 51, 116-17, 205-6, and Table
Ur-Zababa(k), 13, 105, 106-9, 110-11, 143,
160-61, 163, 168, 178-79, and Tables I-
Ur-zaged, 181-82
Ush, 139
tJ'^-watar, 108-9, 159-61, 168, and Tables
‘'usurper^^ in Agade dynasty, 28
Utu, 21, 84-85, 142-43, 151
Utu-hegal, 12-13, 89, 120-21, 136, 138-41,
146, 202-4, 205-6, and Table II
Utuk, 97, 187
Utul-kalamma(k), 90-91, 170, i<5<9, and
Tables I-II
value of variants, 36, 40-43, 46-49
values of signs, see readings of signs
verb, identifying (- a m), 30-32, 36, 67-68,
136; transitive ^ — ,36-37
verbs, collective form of, 30, 33, 36, 39, 62-
63, 99, 102, 117, 129-30, 135; passive™,
36-37, 87; singular — 30, 34, 37, 40, 62-
63
vowels, assimilation of, 18, 75-76, 83, 171,
198 ,
Walih, see Balih
Warad- . . . . , 8
Warad-Sin, 10, 138, and Table II
WB, 5, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26-27,
28-31, 36-38, 41-47, 49-50, 51-58, 59-68,
69, 70-127, 131, 135-36, 143, 169-71, 173-
74,177
writings, see orthography
X, 47, 48, 50, 55
Y, 4S, 44-46, 48, 50, 54~55, 66-67, 175
Yamutbal, 195
Z, 47-48, 50, 55
Zaba^’a, Table II
Zababa (Ilbaba), 107, 182
Zabshali, 201
Zabum, Table II
Zambia, 126-27 and Table II
Zarikum, 150
Zi-u-sud-ra, 59-60, 76, 103
Zuqaqip, 15-21, 78-79
Zuzu, 181
. . . .“aiimma(k), 72
. . * .bi-MUS 4 -MAs, 102-3
. . . .gi, 100-101, 172, 176, and Tables I-II
. . . .kidimnu, 72
. . . .-iugal, 102-3
. . . .-Id-gal, 10^-5
ni, 102-3
. ,uggalgim, 86-87
. . . .zi, 102-3
E PRmTED 1
IN USA J
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11